Talk:Northrend gems table

I like the format of the table. It is a nice way to look at it. Yes I still prefer my tables arrange by color but this is a very nice piece of work. sugestions is there a way to fins a better orange than what your using .... I would use A Pen. or Attk Pen over A Pene. (Iknow your trying for space consideration Kaosian (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

↑	This indicates that a gem is better than what it should be according to the table. (Exemple: [Runed Scarlet Ruby] should have 9 + 9 spell power = 18. However it has 19.)
↓	This indicates that a gem is worse than what it should be according to the table.

Doesn't this suggest rounding? The table now shows spell power being 7-8-9-12; the Runed gems being 14-16-19↑-23↓; the Luminous gems have 7-8-9-12.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have spell power be 7-8-9½-11½? Then the Runed gems would be 14-16-19-23, and the hybrid gems would still show 7-8-9-12.

Similarly, the Stormy, Solid, and Lustrous all suggest a similar mechanic.

--Einstein9073 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

7-8-9½-11½ ×2 = 14-16-19-23, which is ok for the diagonal, but your model is incorrect because 7-8-9½-11½ rounds to 7-8-10-12 instead of 7-8-9-12 like it should.

Now with thirds instead of halves it works: 7-8-9⅓-11⅔ ×2 = 7-8-18⅔-23⅓ which rounds to 7-8-19-23 and 7-8-9⅓-11⅔ rounds to 7-8-9-12 which is also correct.

But... That may seems like nice but there are two reasons I disregard doing this.

• First, I wouldn't bother people with roundings to do all the time, it gets annoying after a while and the table as it is is already complicated enough.
• Second, it would mislead people into thinking they could get 3 similar gems to get a full point because of the thirds that add up in the background.

Actually, the real numbers used by the game are those shown here. The game doesn't round anything. If the rare runed gem has 19 it's because it has an extra point right out of nowhere. I want people to be able to spot easily those extra points with those arrows (↑) and regard them as "slightly better gem choices" for that reason.

Thank you for your suggestion through, I'm always glad to have feedback.

Sincerely, Xhamon (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I see where you come from when you add the arrows to gems but I don't really agree with it because it suggests that a certain gem is "better" or "worse" simply based on one stat; even going so far as to explicitly state them as better and worse in the key table. Sticking with spell power gems, I know that rare and epic hybrids have 9 and 12 SP, respectively, and that runed rare and epic gems have 18 and 23, 1 point higher for rare, and one point lower for epic. But I'm not entirely certain where you draw the "rule" that the pure gems are always supposed to always be double the hybrid counter parts. Looking at the table, you use these arrows several times, which suggests that its not a "rule", but rather a general formula that is usually followed, but not always. I don't think its wise to include these arrows because, again, it suggests that the Runed Cardinal Ruby, for instance, is somehow worse than it should be.

Basically, if you're going to tell someone that a certain gem is better, you should take into account that person's class' preference or necessity of certain stats, as well as a socket bonus. For instance, if a single yellow socket awards a +5 Spell Power bonus, an orange gem would likely be my first choice, as a mage. A Potent Monarch Topaz, in this case, would give me +14 SP and +8 crit. However, if I were new to gemming and looked at the table, and saw that the Runed Scarlet Ruby is "better", I might ignore the socket bonus and use the Ruby, giving me only 19 SP. If you're going to make a universal table, I think you should ignore trying to give advice on which gems are "better" and just stick to giving each gem's value and letting the reader decide for themself. Just my feedback on the table, hope it helps. Great job on putting it together, by the way. wadark (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree; I believe you missed the sense of the "better than/worse than". It is not stating that "this gem is better than that other gem". It is stating that "the stats for this gem are better than would have been predicted by values other gems have". In any case, I could not locate any use of the arrows on the current (4 may) version of the table. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording a bit to avoid potential confusion. The arrows only happen when gems on the diagonal are odd numbers (not the exact double of the headers). Here is a list of arrow-affected gems: Runed Scarlet Ruby, Lustrous Chalcedony, Runed Cardinal Ruby, Runed Stormjewel, Stormy Chalcedony, Stormy Majestic Zircon and Perfect Solid Chalcedony.

Merge candidate

Xhamon seemed to think Northrend gems by quality should be deprecated/merged with this article. I figured this would need discussion before this could happen. Although I should say, it seems like a good idea. Much of this information appears to be duplicated.  Howbizr^(t·c) 4:08 PM, 7 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Originally, it was me who made the Northrend gems by quality page. Back then, I liked more that way of sorting the gems than the old way that was used for Outland gems and now for Northrend gems by color. Time passed, I eventually made Northrend gems table and never updated Northrend gems by quality since then. Basically, I intented the new table to replace the quality format. Also, in my intent, Northrend gems table was only supposed to be a template and I wanted to make in the future, a full article named Northrend gems by stats that would include, many other things to introduce the subject and the table. It would be a mix between what Gem currently is with Northrend gems table and some tips for how to use the table and advices for buying gems.

I don't know if many people still use the "by quality" page, but I think personally that it should be entirely scraped. Also, look at this: [[1]] in the dev page, I began to make a format to update the "by quality" format, but I scrapped the idea and I made Northrend gems table instead, which is much better. Xhamon (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I might as well begin Northrend gems by stats right now. Xhamon (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)