User talk:Bu3ny

Plasma Field
I removed that note because it was pointless. You don't mention something like that because a lot other skills interrupt channeling abilities, even other instant cast-timed skills like Hex, Invoke, Death Pulse, Scream of Pain, etc. You mention something if it DOESN'T interrupt channeling abilities. Because going by this logic, might as well put on every ability, not just Plasma Field, that it interrupts channeling abilities. Arbok77 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not pointless... There are many spells with istant cast time which don't interrupt and many spell which do. It's about spells which have no targeting and instant cast time. So hex won't count. It's better to say that they don't, instead of making people guess if they do or don't. It's obvious that targeted spells interrupt, but not for instant casted non-targeted spells.Bu3ny (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

RECEIV CAEK


Thanks for makin' those sound sections! Lemoncake (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cake :3 Bu3ny (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

a note to my edit battler
I'm the one that re-edited your edits to my edits.

Basically the reasons are as follows:


 * you are using e.g. and i.e. improperly (look here)


 * There is no reason to state that the mines are phased because the definition of phased is that the unit has no collision with units or heroes (this of course does not include buildings but that is inconsequential for mines and traps).
 * I dumbed it down to just say that they can be stacked in one spot without blocking unit pathing and is the essence of the point both of us were trying to get across but in far fewer words.
 * If you want to get fancy with knowledge, the only reason the mines have any collision is so they can be proximity triggered :D


 * regarding building dmg by mines and their armor, you should say something like "related to their basic armor" it should just be "dmg with their base armor" basic means base and it sounds bad.
 * also, the bold note that the damage values were pulled from the battle log needs to stay as people try to figure the whole "buildings have fortified armor" calculation into it and dota 2 doesnt have these types of armor, they just have physical, pure, and magic dmg with armor, magic resistance, ethereal, and magic immune for damage state calculations


 * the respawn note for was way too large with the superfluous examples (you were the one that cited reducing walls of text but put that crap back in?). I cut it down to just the calculation priority which is all anyone needs to figure it out, examples need not apply.


 * Huge pet peeve here: there's no reason to cite "based on current cd, duration, blah blah blah" the note is based on the current skill... I think people can figure out that if you state you can have 52 remote mines (also an entry for stasis trap) it is based on the current duration and cool down.


 * someone needs to test the "no effect" bit of extra stasis traps being destroyed within the AoE, some people say the extra mines stun, some say they are destroyed to no effect. I'll try to test this this afternoon.

thanks for the techies edit battle, hope this clears things up and we can work together on this entry


 * Let's stick with e.g., because that's what has been used here mainly and is more known.


 * You edited to "the mines have no collision", which is simply wrong information. That was my only problem with that. And no, your reasoning for why units have collision size is wrong. They could have 0 collision and still could be triggered without any problems. The reason most likely is that Valve was just lazy and didn't set it to 0 (DOTA_HULL_SIZE_SMALL (which translate to a collision size of 8) is the default entry of that field in the "template" they use,).


 * No, we generally don't do such stuff as "values taken from combat log" or anything like that. Instead, just add another note saying that their damage is only reduced by armor value, not armor type. And regarding that, the armor page most likely needs an updated, too, because they probably are still copy-pasted from playdota and rewritten a bit, without actually making sure it works the same way in Dota2. So for now, I just add the note that they ignore armor type.


 * Sometimes it's better to give an example, but if you can word it so that it's not required, fine.


 * I was the one who updated every heroes', item and neutrals notes. And I ensure you, everything is based on tests made by me. You probably don't know me, but I'm basically the one who "manages" the gameplay bugs and critical test client bugs section on the devs forum and I'm doing this since early beta. It might be possible that some notes don't apply anymore, because I updated all the notes before 6.83 was released. But the stasis traps remained unchanged in that patch, so that note should still be correct. So I'll remove the bolded part.


 * My english isn't perfect, so I don't really mind if you reword stuff, as long as you don't change the context. Bu3ny (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

just so you know, toss is disjointable and flak cannon is not an attack so would never proc craggy

oh and the tower dmg toss does is too variable to fit it all into a note... lvl 1 toss lvl 0 grow = 25 and lvl 4 toss lvl 3 grow = 178 dmg and the game doesnt take into consideration partial damage values, check the battle log

No, Toss CANNOT be disjointed, it DOES home but flies for a limited amount of time. By your logic Snowball is disjointable, too. They are not. and Flak Cannon DOES count as attacks. You don't know its mechanics, I do. It uses the same mechanics as Split Shot, which are also attacks. Bu3ny (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Toss CAN be disjointed. Check this list: Projectile abilities that can be disjointed

It is much the same as Assassinate.

As far as Flak Cannon, I concede to your point. I was mentally confusing it with Rocket Barrage. Oh and I'd have to say you don't know the mechanics if you think Toss is not disjointable.

That list is wrong. It was blindly copied from DotA1 and never updated (I will update it soon, like how I updated many other things here which were just copypasted from DotA1). Assassinate is fully disjointable. The thing is, it provides true sight until the projectile hits. Slark and Smoke of Deceit can disjoint it with invis, because of true sight immunity. Also You can't compare it to Assassinate at all, because it does not home the target once disjointed. Toss does home the target for the 1.3 seconds. If the target gets further away, the speed the unit is flying with increases, capped at 3076,69, so it will only fly for up to 4000 range. You can see it here youtu.be/pTlewq2i9Tk

Also, Toss aoe damage is fixed. The 20% and the grow extra damage are applied to the tossed enemy unit only, which you can see here youtu.be/LoyNff8g9lI (Youtube links get filtered as spam, so I can't directly link them) Bu3ny (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I concede toss tower dmg and potentially the disjoint but will test this afternoon to ensure.

Bu3ny,

I concede that you were correct about most of the mechanics we have fought about today. However, you conducted yourself as a royal ass and need to work on how you "correct" others instead of starting fights as you did with me. Provide proof or a way to recreate the mechanic you think the other person is wrong about.

I have just finished recreating the disjointability of Tiny's toss. The skill is completely disjointable if a blink (Antimage and Blink Dagger both work) is performed at the right time. As such, I am going to update the skill entry on Tiny's page.

New Editors
Please be nicer to new editors. - Lemoncake  (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarity cast range
So this is a bug? http://www.gfycat.com/DeliciousWillingAidi


 * QoP giving herself a clarity?...Bu3ny (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.gfycat.com/SneakyIncredibleKoodoo


 * I dont know how you are doing that, but the cast range is 100 for me and the ingame files confirm that Bu3ny (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Stone Gaze
You might wanna have a look at your wording again, looks really messy now.


 * Sometimes I forget how2engrish. Is it better now? Bu3ny (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Should be more legible now.

Changes being Reverted
Ah yes, thanks for specifying the "hidden" aspect that comes along with the invulnerability of those spells. You are right about it. You may have already tested them. As you said, I will re-test them later with the remaining invulnerability spells.

But I do not understand is why you reverted the other changes in the way the notes are organized/Rephrased? Do you have a problem with the way it was re-organized as well? If so, please mention the issue.


 * For consistancy with other ability notes. Bu3ny (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Consistancy? So you think grouping information together is a bad idea? (Such as information regarding items such as Euls Scepter.)

Venomancer notes
Hey! Thought you would be interested in checking out the notes in venomancer's passive ~ Damage Before reductions. (Even this value can be modified with veil, ancient seal, pugna decrepify etc)

Help on page
Hi. I see you are familiar with the mechanics of Dota. Please help expand the page I created on damage over time. Szqec (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would, but I have other things I want to finish first. And it is bad trying to edit the same page at the same time, as it will cause edit conflicts. Expand it as much as you can and I'll take a look at it later. Bu3ny (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Red numbers
Are red damage numbers before reductions or after? I think it's after. Szqec (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * They are before. You can easily check it yourself out ingame in a lobby. Pick jug, level his crit then create any enemy hero, level it up to 25, give it 6 assaults, then create a wisp and leave it at level 1 and give it 6 hearts and crit both. The red number will be the same for both, but the wisp takes 100% of your attack damage (a lvl 1 wisp has exactly 0 armor, so it is completely unreduced), while the other hero will take much much less due to high armor. I still have this pic showing it http://i.imgur.com/VlpPqXv.png Bu3ny (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But for abilities they seem to be after. Check this video out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1o39u9Rc_Y Szqec (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That there is not related to the red crit number. Look closer. The red crit number has a small lightning on the left side of the text. What you see in that video is simply a red text which only pops when you take a certain amount of damage (I think it was at least 10% of your hp as damage). It has a blood drop on the left side of the text.
 * Crit red text is always before every reductions. That damage received text (which can appear from any damage you take and is only visible to the player) shows what you actually took. Bu3ny (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding item ID template in recommended items
I thought it would be a problem due to redundancy, though I later thought that due to the game's visual nature having as much visual information as necessary couldn't possibly be a bad thing. It's not overlinking, because they would be linked regardless of whether or not item ID was in there. The loading of 288 pixels worth of images is negligible compared to how slow Curse's servers are naturally (compare reloading the TF2 wiki's main page with this wiki's main page). If this sort of visual aid was on every other Wiki I go on, I would have saved tons of time by not having to open new articles in tabs.

I know from experience this won't go anywhere on a Wiki discussion due to the extremely slow nature of the mediation process, so can we please have a consensus now? --LoneScoot (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot that you said the pictures are right in the sidebar, which is fair. Though having to translate a horizontal picture layout to a vertical text layout is a chore in itself. You know why people don't like spreadsheets, right? It's because it's annoying to try to make sense of without visual aids like color-coding the columns. --LoneScoot (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't use them because templates slow down load and edit times. That's why this wiki is so much slower than TF2 wiki - we use a ton of templates. - Lemoncake  (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this then a seperate problem? We can't simply remove templates, seeing as they're too useful to give up. So why not make the most use out of them while they're still here, as I said before? --LoneScoot (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it lags. We can simply remove them, and we have. Loss of utility is minor. According to the Curse this is a technical limitation and the only solution is to not use too many templates. I plan on trimming all hero pages in the future anyway, will see about template usage after I make some space. - Lemoncake  (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a loss of utility ever minor? The definition of utility is that it's useful, and the more useful a page is the better the experience is for the reader. It takes two and a half seconds to load a page (which is on par with many other wikis), and a heck of a lot longer to read it. People expect there to be a delay when loading a webpage, because that's just how the Web works. Shaving an extra second off that is meaningless if we lose the practicality of the article somebody is trying to read, because why bother reading an article if it's not done to the highest possible quality?
 * Sorry for the text wall, though I think the loading issue isn't as large as you think. --LoneScoot (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's minor because people either know what the item is or they click on it. I'm more concerned with edit time, there's a threshold where too many templates makes the page time out whenever people try to make an edit and I don't want that to discourage people. You can still do the ones that are there now if you want, it just makes more sense for me to decide when I get to trimming the articles - Lemoncake  (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, editing a specific section is much faster than editing the whole page at once. I usually make all my big edits in an external notepad anyway.
 * I'll assume this means I can add in the Item ID templates, which I will given the chance. --LoneScoot (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

6.84 Quelling Blade
In the patch notes, it says it now only increases base damage. Does that include primary attribute damage? If it does, you probably want to change the attack damage page.


 * I'm not sure what that change exactly was. I'll look into it later. Bu3ny (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Base damage
Regarding my last post, you seem to have figured out that quelling blade increases base damage and attribute damage, but the patch notes says "base damage". Maybe we should establish the former be called "basic", basic + attribute = base? Szqec (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no need to. Valve is quite inconsistant with their wording. I personally would call it base damage + attributes = main damage. Because base makes most sense for that. Also base and basic are kinda the same word. Bu3ny (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommended Items block
Hello, Bu3ny. Can you please explain or just give me a link to "howto" about editting hero's "Recommended Items block" (not sections with explaining text, but items block itself) ? Or may be it is not allowed to edit this block to guests (not registered users) ? Thank you.


 * If you mean the box showing the recommended items, they are not to edit. They exclusively only show items recommended by Valve. However, if you want to add stuff about other viable items, you can put it into the Tips section instead. Bu3ny (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was talking about items box, thank you. This is very unfortunate, because some hero's boxes are out of date... So usually I edit the Explanation section, not the Tips one. Thank you for answer.

Cost efficiency reversions
I'd like to add cost efficiency formulas for various stats (armor, damage, etc.) You reverted my changes immediately... I'm guess I'm putting them in the wrong place or something? Feedback would be appreciated.


 * This has already been discussed and here. The conclusion was to not include them into this wiki Bu3ny (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll put further discussion there. --Pblur (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)