Timeline for What do those abbreviations mean in Diablo 2?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2012 at 22:17 | comment | added | l I | @BlueRaja typically the numbers are for the values on the item that are not fixed, but some items have worthless modifiers that players ignore (such as light radius). The only way to learn it all is through playing and usage, unfortunately. | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 17:00 | comment | added | BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft | @yx: So is there a listing of what those numbers are for each item? Or maybe an explanation on how to figure that out? Explaining just the one doesn't really help, if they're all different. | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 15:52 | comment | added | l I | its just for that specific item. All items usually have their own set of numbers, cta (call to arms) for instance is referred by 3 numbers (for the 3 battle skills). for example, 2/6/2 | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 15:43 | comment | added | BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft |
So just to be clear, 1/49/69/190 would mean "+1 skills, 49% enhanced damage, 69% bonus to attack rating, 190% enhanced defense"? Do those numbers always mean the same thing in the same order, or is that just for shields (or are the numbers ordered arbitrarily, and you're just supposed to figure out what they mean)?
|
|
| Jan 20, 2012 at 15:40 | history | edited | BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 118 characters in body
|
| Jan 20, 2012 at 14:54 | history | edited | l I | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatting
|
| Jan 20, 2012 at 14:42 | comment | added | Christoffer Hammarström | Could you make this a bullet list instead, so people won't need to scroll horizontally? | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 14:30 | history | edited | CptSupermrkt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Jan 20, 2012 at 14:30 | comment | added | CptSupermrkt | Good catch, will edit that in. | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 14:06 | comment | added | fschl | oh and btw: Blizzballer is Blizzard and Fireball, not Orb ;) | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 14:05 | comment | added | l I | those links, while nice, contain waaaay too many useless acronyms to just read through, but they are great references. Just from a quick glance, the second is more useful than the first. | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 14:02 | comment | added | fschl | /sigh ok I won't add more to my question since everything else can be found in a link I was too dumb to stumble upon | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 14:00 | vote | accept | fschl | ||
| Jan 20, 2012 at 13:48 | comment | added | l I | its probably a bad thing I can still remember most, if not all of the acronyms without looking it up | |
| Jan 20, 2012 at 10:22 | history | edited | CptSupermrkt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 640 characters in body
|
| Jan 20, 2012 at 10:15 | history | answered | CptSupermrkt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |