Talk:Rarity

Great page, Forcepalm. With much respect, I would like improve the description of the colors. When I read "Light Purple", "Light Green", and "Light Orange"; I wondered if there were going to be dark versions of the colors. Then I realized you were just being exacting - compared to the background, they are all light shades. However, all text has to be in light shades because contrast against the background is necessary for good legibility. The shading even fluctuates between dark and light, so why say they are all light? For simplicity and clarity, let's just call them by their colors. I believe they were most likely intended to be called Blue, Green, and Orange. Blue (not purple), because it really does look blue (when dark and when light). --SgtKlaos 17:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the 1.0.5 changelog refers to the rarity as "blue" specifically, I think it's safe to say that was the intended color. 67.233.104.83 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

New 1.1 rarity levels
Currently, the Rarity page reads that there is only one purple rarity. However here is what I have in my inventory :

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2162/levelsl.png

Although it is difficult to see, the two last items have different colors. It looks like improved red items have a slightly pink color, while magical items are closer to purple. I suggest we call them just "pink" and "purple". The "red" tier should also be added to the page. However, I have yet to find a black tier item. Did anyone else find any other colors ?

--Tcas 12:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add the red tier in the table but seems that i could not... --Sergiusalceanu 13:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

After some tests, it seems the "purple" tier is not only for magical items: it is definitely the most powerful tier, more than the "magenta" tier (that sounds better than "pink"). I'll try to add that to the list. --Tcas 14:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Destruction in Lava
I threw some plain grenades into lava and they rolled and blew up normally. However, that was "throw (use)" as opposed to "throw (discard)" so it's either an oversight or an anomaly... or my goggles were on too tightly. Anyone did similar testing? - 03:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)