Talk:Rings - Revision history

Leord at 16:19, 7 April 2009

2009-04-07T16:19:51Z

DxAxxxTyriel at 18:35, 4 April 2009

2009-04-04T18:35:22Z

Sayaf at 18:25, 4 April 2009

2009-04-04T18:25:37Z

New page

The entry listed rings qualities mentioning Legendary and Set ring variants. So far set items aren't confirmed yet. Also there is no confirmation for the existence of a legendary item quality.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 7 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The entry listed rings qualities mentioning Legendary and Set ring variants. So far set items aren't confirmed yet. Also there is no confirmation for the existence of a legendary item quality.	+	The entry listed rings qualities mentioning Legendary and Set ring variants. So far set items aren't confirmed yet. Also there is no confirmation for the existence of a legendary item quality. -- 18:25, 4 April 2009 Sayaf

	:Legendary or high quality items will exist, and there is a high chance rings will be among them, amulets too... in D2 some sets had rings in them, so if there will be sets in D3 (Jay said that they wanna have set items in D3 but as long as they are good, Or something like that), then rings might be among them.... the game isnt released yet and it has 2 wiki's, so no info is credible... and if no info is credible, then whats the point of having a wiki bout it? Some amount of guessing must be there.... --[[User:DxAxxxTyriel\|DxAxxxTyriel]] 20:35, 4 April 2009 (CEST)		:Legendary or high quality items will exist, and there is a high chance rings will be among them, amulets too... in D2 some sets had rings in them, so if there will be sets in D3 (Jay said that they wanna have set items in D3 but as long as they are good, Or something like that), then rings might be among them.... the game isnt released yet and it has 2 wiki's, so no info is credible... and if no info is credible, then whats the point of having a wiki bout it? Some amount of guessing must be there.... --[[User:DxAxxxTyriel\|DxAxxxTyriel]] 20:35, 4 April 2009 (CEST)
		+
		+	::Sayaf is right though. Speculation on part of the author needs to be pointed out with "it's likely that", or "fans speculate", or similar things. You're right though, we DO needs lots of speculation, or it would just be a copy of the official site. =) We just need to be very clear on what is "probable", "likely", "very likely", and "confirmed". --[[User:Leord\|Leord]] 18:19, 7 April 2009 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 4 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The entry listed rings qualities mentioning Legendary and Set ring variants. So far set items aren't confirmed yet. Also there is no confirmation for the existence of a legendary item quality.		The entry listed rings qualities mentioning Legendary and Set ring variants. So far set items aren't confirmed yet. Also there is no confirmation for the existence of a legendary item quality.
		+
		+	:Legendary or high quality items will exist, and there is a high chance rings will be among them, amulets too... in D2 some sets had rings in them, so if there will be sets in D3 (Jay said that they wanna have set items in D3 but as long as they are good, Or something like that), then rings might be among them.... the game isnt released yet and it has 2 wiki's, so no info is credible... and if no info is credible, then whats the point of having a wiki bout it? Some amount of guessing must be there.... --[[User:DxAxxxTyriel\|DxAxxxTyriel]] 20:35, 4 April 2009 (CEST)