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.