Talk:Witch Doctor

From Dota 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Tere a cap on bonus damage from Maledict? Ssmeek 23:45, 1 October 2011 (CDT)

Nope. -Lancey 00:14, 2 October 2011 (CDT)

Maledict Total Damage[edit]

Something about the Formula calculating maledict damage total is wrong - The difference between untalented and talented total damage is only the damage the increased length of the dot-effect would add - the additional tick is not factored in at all. As such, talented damage totals should be 16%-40% bigger depending on level.


It may be a reference to Dr. Zhivago. -- 01:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Why it says Lost Health as Damage: 16%/24%/32%/40% when actually it is Bonus damage 16/24/32/40?

It is not 16/24/32/40 bonus damage.. The ingame tooltip is simply wrong. The damage is based on the difference of target's health upon cast and its current health as the tick happens. I put an example in the notes to clarify that. It basically damages you for 16%/24%/43%/40% of your health difference. They did a better job describing the skill in DotA1 as you can see [here]. Bu3ny (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, i still not fully understand, but, if ingame description wrong maybe it's good idea to inform valve somehow, to clarify it?
I did report this issue, all we can now do is wait and see if they'll change it. They should, because right now it's just too misleading.
But really, it's simple. The damage of the tick is based on how much health you lost while having the curse on. If you lost lets say exactly 350 health since the curse is applied and before the first tick, the first tick will deal 350 * 40% = 140 damage. The "complicated" part is, the curse doesn't check how much damage you took, it checks your current health.

- When the debuff is applied on you, it saves your current health as value. Let's say you have 600 hp as the curse gets applied. the 600 hp gets saved.
- Now lets say 2 seconds later you get hit by a 200 damage nuke, so your health now is 400. (we ignore the spell's own dot to make this simplier now)
- 2 more seconds later, the firs tick happens. The tick's damage is calculated like this: The saved value (600) - your current health (400) multiplied by 16%, 24%, 32% or 40%. Let's say it's a lvl4 curse, 40%.
- So the damage will be (600 - 400) * 40% = 80 damage. So now your health is at 400 - 80 = 320.
- Let's say in the next 4 seconds you didn't take any more damage. Now the 2nd tick happens. The 2nd tick's damage is calculated the same way. The saved value (600) - your current health (now 320) * 40%
- So the 2nd tick's damage will be (600 - 320) * 40% = 112, reducing your health to 400 - 112 = 288.
- Now for before the last tick, let's throw in a heal. 2 seconds later you get healed by an ally for 300 health, so your health is now at 588.
- Another 2 seconds later the 3rd and last tick happens. Again, the damage is calculated the same way. Saved value (600) - current health (now 588 after the heal) * 40%.
- So the last tick will deal (600 - 588) * 40% = 4.8 damage.
Bu3ny (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually i get the math (that you describe), it's not that complicated. What i don't get is how can ingame description be so wrong and differ from what you describe. And second - how actually you got all these 16%/24%/32%/40%?? Just by experimentation? :)
The ingame numbers are correct, the wording is just bad. Technically, the ingame description is correct.. For every 100 health lost, it deals 16/24/32/40 damage. That basically is 16%/24%/32%/40%. But they made it sound like it always deals 16/24/32/40 damage for every 100 damage you took. That part is wrong. The damage is not fixed at those numbers. It also isn't based on the damage you took (as implied in the ingame description), it's based on health difference.Bu3ny (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's take a look at ingame description "...adding bonus damage for every 100 HP lost since the curse began." I don't see word "damage" here. So actually it is correct. If we had 1000hp and after malledicted got down to say 800, then for every 100 we lost we'll get: 1000-800=200 200/100=2 2*40=80) 80 additional damage. In my opinion interest are just adding more complication here, while "every 100 hp lost" is more transparent. :)
"adding bonus damage for every 100 HP lost since the curse began" This sounds like you will take damage for each 100 hp lost. It sounds like it won't damage when you lost eg 50 health. It also sounds like you still will get damaged even after getting healed back up before a tick happens. Bu3ny (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
They changed the spell description ingame. Now it is more clear. Bu3ny (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Maledict and Spell Immunity[edit]

The wiki says it goes through BKB, the ingame description says it doesn't. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) • (contribs)

Sometimes the in-game tooltips are wrong. Have you tested its actual behavior in a game? —LingoSalad (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The damage is blocked, which is basically the main part of the spell. However, piercing spell immunity is not about the damage (since magical damage is always blocked, no matter what), it's about the other effects of the spell. Upon cast, the Maledict debuff infact is placed on spell immune units, so it pierces it. Bu3ny (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Something is wrong with this page (3 jun 2019).[edit]

Bottom half of this page is completely wrecked, formatting all screwed up. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bogdanov89 (talk) • (contribs) • Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I don't see it. Where? BetaLeaf (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
It's fixed already. It's an issue with the unit infobox wrapper, which needs to be fixed still. ~~ Bu3ny (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what issue you were seeing, but there shouldn't anything wrong with the templates. It's more likely that the golden rule of Cargo was being violated: "Don't attempt to Show values inside of the template they are declared, instead use variables." I've updated the templates to use variables and I don't see any broken pages. -- Sanhard 12:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)