Talk:Gems

Merge
Yeah, I don't see the point of having 1 page per gem. All of the available info is here. Happypal 08:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Demian 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Last warning before I make the merge effective. Happypal 08:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i wan't it moved!!!!!
 * It will have to wait through the Week End. Happypal 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh... merge discussions last WEEKS, not hours. Please stop this. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  06:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Links
Is there any reason for "item unlink"? I would say it's better if they're linked.
 * It was in prevision of an upcomming merge (in which case a link would be useless). Happypal 19:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Move
Speak now or forever hold your peace. Happypal 06:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking now. Do not move this page. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  06:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I thought we were having a discussion. I want to move it because "Gem" is more appropriate. It is singular like every other pages about anything. Impacts are slim to none. Happypal 06:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this and all other pages should have singular titles. Links to plural titled pages have to have their text altered for a singular form, while a singular title only requires an 's' after the brackets to be changed. -- Michael 19:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh.. that is not concensus.... singular like every other pages about anything is not the case... redirects from the main page are MESSY, and do you really want all the links on the main page to be singular? it will make us look like we dont' know basic english. Pages about multiple things should be plural, since this is a page about multiple items, it should be plural. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  06:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The main page is still plural, and not a redirect. 06:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does not address the fact that this page is about MULTIPLE things. I don't get why you are so impatient and so insistent. Between your merging and moving you are literally driving me nuts. SLOW DOWN. Discussion and consensus does not mean get one person to agree with you and then forge ahead. You KNOW I have issues with this. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  06:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tools. Weapons. Accessories. Soils. Blocks. Potions. Gem? WTF? There is no need for a discussion about re-moving this because all other category pages are plural.. I'll move to Gems. --Null  Talk  22:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Gem's Rarity


I know map viewers are looked down upon, but the whole "deeper you go rarer gems you find thing" was bugging me, as I know I found diamond fairly close to the surface, and topaz lower down. So I decided to download one that marked out gem locations, and started a completely blank map. To my surprise, I discovered that depth has no influence on the chance of a gemtype spawning. I did notice that diamonds spawned more frequently in jungles however. I'm going to test some more maps now to see whether that was coincidence or is actually a fact. I'll post a picture of the world so you can see what I mean in a second.--Doctor G33K 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Here's a pic. The diamond thing was just a random two worlds that happened to have more diamonds in the jungle. Point is, gems are evenly spread out throughout the world.


 * It doesn't look like there is a difference in distribution, gems can be generated anywhere below the surface. There does appear to be a difference in the number of patches of each gem that are generated. It varies depending on the size of the world. Interestingly that would imply that gems are more rare on a large map than a small one because while the number of patches scales along the x axis, it doesn't scale along y. I've included a table with the number of patches of each gem for each world size, I'm not sure if it belongs in the article though.


 * Olrad 08:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sell values
I don't know how to make the appropriate table, so I'll just put the sell prices here in silver. Someone else can put it in the article.

Diamond        60

Ruby           30

Emerald        22.5

Sapphire       10.5

Topaz          7.5

Amethyst       3.75

Aru 06:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stack
I'm noticing that I'm able to stack over 99 sapphire. I assume it's 999 gems per stack now? AskaLangly (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)