Armor does NOT have diminishing returns

[EnragedCamel]

People need to stop saying this. It just shows how badly you fail at math.

Let's say that you start with 0 armor. You get an item that has 10 armor and reach 50% mitigation. Wohoo.

Then you buy another of the same item. You now have 20 armor, but... only 75% mitigation.

So you're going "omg armor has diminishing returns, it's useless after a while".

WRONG!

Look, there are many examples of this on various gaming forums online, but here's a quick explanation of why you're wrong.

10 armor gives 50% mitigation, which means it reduces a 100 dmg hit to 50 dmg.

10 additional armor gives only 25% more mitigation, and it reduces a 100 dmg hit to a 25 dmg hit.

While you may think that it is becoming less effective, it actually is not. When you had 10 armor, you were taking 50 dmg. Now that you have 20 armor, you're taking 25 dmg, i.e. 50% less damage than you were taking before. This is the same as originally:

0 armor > 10 armor = take 50% less damage than before
10 armor > 20 armor = take 50% less damage than before (i.e. when you had 10 armor)

This means that armor's value stays the same even though the amount of total mitigation you get decreases. Which is normal because if it didn't decrease then 20 armor would give you 100% mitigation and that is silly right?

[dreamex]

Only true for Positive Armor, Negative Armor is given by an exponential function and does suffer diminishing returns.

[Darkstrand]

So who here is going to go out and buy a shitton of armor instead of real items?

While it doesn't decrease the percentage, I would still consider it a diminishing return on the gold you have to spend to purchase it. After a while it's not cost effective to purchase more armor if each additional item is giving you less of a bonus (in terms of actual damage mitigated).

[dreamex]

While it doesn't decrease the percentage, I would still consider it a diminishing return on the gold you have to spend to purchase it. After a while it's not cost effective to purchase more armor if each additional item is giving you less of a bonus (in terms of actual damage mitigated).

It doesn't have diminishing returns with respect to eHP or time to live.


Armor primer:

Positive Armor:

damageReduction = (0.06 * AC) / (1 + 0.06 * AC)

Negative Armor:

damageIncrease = 1 - (0.94 ^ (--AC))

Assuming our target hero has 1000 HP and our source of damage deals 100 damage per hit at zero armor it would take precisely 10 hits to kill our target.

For Positive Armor:

At 5 armor:
23.0% reduction (increase of 23.0%), meaning damage dealt is 77.0 per hit, requiring 13 hits~ (3 more hits)

At 10 armor:
37.5% reduction (increase of 14.5%), meaning damage dealt is 62.5 per hit, requiring 16 hits~ (3 more hits)

At 15 armor:
47.3% reduction (increase of 9.8%), meaning damage dealt is 52.7 per hit, requiring 19 hits~ (3 more hits)

At 20 armor:
54.5% reduction (increase of 7.2%), meaning damage dealt is 45.5 per hit, requiring 22 hits~ (3 more hits)

Despite the diminishing increase in damage reduction you'll find that every point of armor is worth the exact same increase in your time to live calculation, extending your lifespan by the exact same amount of damage taken.

For Negative Armor:

At -5 Armor:
26.6% Bonus Damage (Increase of 26.6%), meaning damage dealt is 126.6 per hit, requiring 7.89 hits~ (a little more than 2 fewer hits)

At -10 Armor:
46.2% Bonus Damage (Increase of 19.6%), meaning damage dealt is 146.2 per hit, requiring 6.83 hits~ (a little more than 1 fewer hits)

At -15 Armor:
60.5% Bonus Damage (Increase of 14.3%), meaning damage dealt is 160.5 per hit, requiring 6.23 hits~ (less than 1 fewer hits)

At -20 Armor:
71.0% Bonus Damage (Increase of 10.5%), meaning damage dealt is 171.0 per hit, requiring 5.84 hits~ (less than 0.5 fewer hits)

Within the DotA engine -20 Armor was the hardcap, I'm not sure if that restriction lies in HoN or not. But as you can see, Positive Armor has no diminishing value in terms of increasing your time to live while negative armor has diminishing value in terms of decreasing your time to die. The most important part of negative armor is pushing someone into the first -5 to -10 Armor area. After that, it's really inconsequential how far you push it down based on how the exponential formula works.

[EnragedCamel]

While it doesn't decrease the percentage, I would still consider it a diminishing return on the gold you have to spend to purchase it. After a while it's not cost effective to purchase more armor if each additional item is giving you less of a bonus (in terms of actual damage mitigated).

This would only be true if each point of additional armor cost more gold.

Which is not true.

[Murlox]

amor HAS diminishing returns because in DotA as in Hon, you won't go very far if you don't farm creeps like there is no tomorrow.

And stacking armor doesnt really help in that matter.

/semi-troll off

[dune]

People need to stop saying this. It just shows how badly you fail at math.

Let's say that you start with 0 armor. You get an item that has 10 armor and reach 50% mitigation. Wohoo.

Then you buy another of the same item. You now have 20 armor, but... only 75% mitigation.

So you're going "omg armor has diminishing returns, it's useless after a while".

WRONG!

Look, there are many examples of this on various gaming forums online, but here's a quick explanation of why you're wrong.

10 armor gives 50% mitigation, which means it reduces a 100 dmg hit to 50 dmg.

10 additional armor gives only 25% more mitigation, and it reduces a 100 dmg hit to a 25 dmg hit.

While you may think that it is becoming less effective, it actually is not. When you had 10 armor, you were taking 50 dmg. Now that you have 20 armor, you're taking 25 dmg, i.e. 50% less damage than you were taking before. This is the same as originally:

0 armor > 10 armor = take 50% less damage than before
10 armor > 20 armor = take 50% less damage than before (i.e. when you had 10 armor)

This means that armor's value stays the same even though the amount of total mitigation you get decreases. Which is normal because if it didn't decrease then 20 armor would give you 100% mitigation and that is silly right?

I'm really confused. What you described here is diminishing returns, particularly the last sentence. I have no idea what you consider diminishing returns, but I can assure you that this is exactly what it is. Look at it on a marginal level if you wish.

[Kirbynator]

hahaha exactly

op fails.

[Extreme_Cake]

The amount of armour get diminishes, but the relative effects do not. Sticking with the OP's example:

0 armour = 0%
10 armour = 50%
20 armour = 75%

Going from 0% to 50% halves your damage intake (I hope that's obvious). However, going from 10 to 20 also halves your damage intake, because 25% of total damage is in fact equal to 50% of your current damage intake. Mathematically (if total damage = d)

0 armour = d
10 armour = d/2
20 armour = d/4

When you write it like that, it's a little easier to see.

[Workdawg]

Actually...

If you look at it from the perspective of actual damage prevented, versus a percentage, you can see how it DOES diminish. And from a cost perspective, it is relevant as well since gold isn't unlimited (sure, you can farm more, but then you aren't helping your team, etc). You could also argue that inventory slots are limited as well.

Saying that armor is "useless after a while" is kinda dumb, but it DOES become less cost effective. And cost effective is the only way to look at it. Gold is the only resource in the game, and while technically It's unlimited, your time is not. And you need time to farm gold.

From your example in the OP:

If 10 armor gives you 50% damage reduction, and you get hit for 100, you'll take 50 damage.

If 20 armor gives you 75% damage reduction, and you get hit for 100, you'll take 25 damage.

We can all agree about this, but when you add in gold, which is where the returns come from (you input gold to get an item that gives you armor... gold in, armor out), you can see that it diminishes.

For ease of numbers, lets say your +10 armor item cost you 1000 gold.

10 armor gives you 50% damage reduction for 500 gold. -> 10 gold per 1% damage reduction.

20 armor gives you 75% damage reduction for 1000 gold. -> 13.333 gold per 1% in damage reduction.

To go further...

30 armor gives you 87.5% damage reduction for 1500 gold. -> 17.143 gold per 1%

40 armor gives you 93.75% damage reduction for 2000 gold. -> 21.333 gold per 1%

As you can see, at 40 armor, it's costing you more than twice as much gold for the same effect (1% damage reduction).

You probably aren't going to stack 4 of the same armor granting item, unless you're superfarmed and they are Frostfield Plates or something, but at that point, money is no object... but the point remains.

Inventory slots is a little less relevant, because there are many items that grant armor in addition to other things, so stacking a Frostfield Plate and Enhanced Marchers isn't crazy.

==========

Real game numbers (assuming hero starts with 0 armor, which is wrong, but hey):
(Source: http://honwiki.net/wiki/Armor)


1x Platemail = 10 armor for 1400 gold
10 armor grants 38% damage reduction. 36.842 gold per 1%

2x Platemail = 20 armor for 2800 gold
20 armor grants 55% damage reduction. 50.909 gold per 1%

3x Platemail = 30 armor for 4200 gold
30 armor grants 64% damage reduction. 65.625 gold per 1%

4x Platemail = 40 armor for 5600 gold
40 armor grants 71% damage reduction. 78.873 gold per 1%

5x Platemail = 50 armor for 7000 gold
40 armor grants 75% damage reduction. 93.333 gold per 1%

6x Platemail = 60 armor for 8400 gold
60 armor grants 78% damage reduction. 107.692 gold per 1%


Lets say you have 2000 hp with 50 armor.
If you go into battle with only people who do physical damage and die, you'll have taken (hp/(1-reduction)) 2000/(1-.75) = 8000 damage.


Now lets say you're a crazy person and you invest 7000 gold in 5x Platemails but you still manage to die. Your 6th slot is open and you have another 1400 gold.

Should you buy another Platemail?

If you buy the Platemail you'll still have 2000 hp, but with 60 armor.
Now the same thing happens... you die. But more armor means you'll have taken 9200 damage. (This is where the "effective HP" verbage comes from.)

Lets say you buy a Beastheart instead (300 hp) for 1100 gold. You now have 2300 hp and 50 armor.
This time you'll have taken 9200 damage. (2300/(1-.75) = 9200)

Notice this is the same as above. Doesn't seem that great right? The same result and you only saved 300 gold? But also consider that if someone casts a magic damage nuke on you, that 300 hp might just save you where the armor won't do anything.

========

I digress...

[dune]

The amount of armour get diminishes, but the relative effects do not. Sticking with the OP's example:

0 armour = 0%
10 armour = 50%
20 armour = 75%

Going from 0% to 50% halves your damage intake (I hope that's obvious). However, going from 10 to 20 also halves your damage intake, because 25% of total damage is in fact equal to 50% of your current damage intake. Mathematically (if total damage = d)

0 armour = d
10 armour = d/2
20 armour = d/4

When you write it like that, it's a little easier to see.

I see what he means, but it just isn't like that. Armour stacks with diminishing returns but the rate at which it diminishes is constant. If, for example, we used the Cleave trait. This stacks linearly, two 50% cleaves will give you 100% cleave. However, Critical stacks with diminishing returns, i.e. two 50% crits will give you 75% crit. Even though the second crit chance is 50% of the remaining 50% it still gives marginally less and less and as such it has diminishing returns. The same is with armour.

[Workdawg]

And ya... as other's have said... what you're describing is exactly the definition of diminishing returns...

For each 5 armor, you in your OP Example, you might reduce your damage taken by 50%, but you're still only reducing the damage taken by less for each peice of armor added.

Think of it like this.

If armor didn't diminish, from your OP Example:

100 damage with 5 armor = 50 damage reduced = 50 damage taken
100 damage with 10 armor = 5x2 armor = 50x2 damage reduced = 0 damage taken

[Extreme_Cake]

Yes, armour as a stat has diminishing returns. This is offset by the fact that armour has an increasingly powerful effect per point. I can't say whether the two balance out, because I don't know the numbers.

It's explained rather better (albeit not for the same game) at http://www.tankspot.com/forums/f63/41522-diminishing-returns-armour.html.

[KARTlK]

If 10 armor helps you survive six more hits from a Madman, 20 armor will help you survive 12 hits.

Armor's benefits do not diminish.

[Zeons]

People should start thinking in terms of Effective Hit Points (EHP). The same increase in armor leads to the same increase in EHP.

Proof:

Consider a hero with 1000 hp and 0 armor. To kill it one needs to deal at least 1000 damage to it.

If we give the hero 10 armor, which is 37.5% damage reduction, every attack would only deal 62.5% of the original value. To kill it now, one needs to deal 1600 damage (1600 * 0.625 = 1000). You could say that the hero now has 600 more EHP.

If we instead give the hero 20 armor, which is 54.5% damage reduction, the damage we take is now 45.5%. In this case, the damage needed to kill would increase to 2200 (2200 * 0.455 = 1000). The increase in EHP is 1200, twice the amount as given by only 10 armor.

Conclusion:

Buying armor may be more useful then getting a heart when not facing nukers and every armor point adds an additional 6% of your maximum HP to your EHP.

[dreamex]

You guys don't get armor.

Armor prevents less damage as it increases but the benefits of armor never decrease.

You will survive the same number of extra attacks that each armor point grants you. My example already showed you guys that.

If you're stuck on the "oh that point of armor only gave me 5% more damage reduction then the last point of armor" then you don't understand time to live, damage received calculations, and effective health. Each point of individual armor increases your e.HP by the exact same amount relative to your base HP and increases your time to live by the exact same amount relative to your base time to live.

If you were to originally have survived for 10 seconds against an opponent and your first 5 armor lets you survive 3 additional seconds, each 5 armor after that increases your survival time by the same 3 seconds and your eHP by the same 30% relative to your base.

Using my previous example, on a hero with 1000 hp receiving attacks of 100 damage every 5 armor points is worth 3 additional attacks or 300 HP in effective Health. This is not a diminishing effect in the same way that stacking mother****ing Beasthearts is not a diminishing effect. Each Beastheart provides you with 250 effective HP, each 5 armor provides you with the same 300 HP in effective Health.

It's like saying your first Beastheart is 25% effective and your next Beast Heart is only 20% effective and your next one after that is only 16% effective relative to your current health.

HP IS DIMINISHING RETURNS GUYS STOP BUYING MORE OF IT

Do you not see how retarded that sounds?

Stacking Platemails is no more cost ineffective than Stacking Beasthearts (in fact, in almost every case it's better).

At some point in time you'll probably want to stack a frostfield plate or a demonic breastplate just in the same way you'd want to stack a Behemoth's Heart or a Symbol of Rage or some other more effective way to improve your HP OR Armor.

[EnragedCamel]

There is diminishing returns on the mitigation, but mitigation by itself is meaningless to measure. Instead, what actually matters is survival time. Each point of armor increases survival time by an equal amount. It does not diminish.

So when you say "armor has diminishing returns", you are right in the sense that the mitigation diminishes, but you are focusing on and measuring the wrong thing and are misleading yourself and others.

[LegoPirate]

armor doesnt stack with diminishing returns.
damage reduction does stack with diminishing returns

however, each point of armor increases how much damage you can take by 6%

this has all been discussed on the mechanics thread already. ill post a couple of key quotes for you guys.


from a survivability point of view, armor has as much diminishing returns as damage has in a DPS point of view; common terminology is to not call that diminishing returns. Yes, the more you have, the smaller the increase will be to what you already have, but that is not what is referred to as diminishing returns. Also, the sudo-regen argument is incorrect.

[EnragedCamel]

armor doesnt stack with diminishing returns.
damage reduction does stack with diminishing returns

however, each point of armor increases how much damage you can take by 6%

this has all been discussed on the mechanics thread already. ill post a couple of key quotes for you guys.



Yes, that is basically correct.

[f4hy]

10 armor gives 50% mitigation, which means it reduces a 100 dmg hit to 50 dmg.

10 more armor = 50 less damage


10 additional armor gives only 25% more mitigation, and it reduces a 100 dmg hit to a 25 dmg hit.

10 more armor = 25 less damage

QED

[ElementUser]

I redirect you all here:

http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?t=18861

[Melchizedek]

I have a question. I realize the whole semantic misunderstanding, and that if adding 1 plate gives you 3 extra hits, 4 gets you 12. But my question is, and this is without having time to do math, I'll come back tomorrow and do some if still needed, at what point if an extra 10 armor less effective than adding hp? 10 armor adds 60% ehp. So for every current armor you have, adding hp will give you retroactive benefits, if that makes sense.

If I have to choose between adding another platemail onto my 100000, 10 hp armor Legionnaire, or adding 10 hp, intuition suggests the latter, as the 10 hp will make all the previous armor I have more effective, does that make any sense? So I'm guessing at some point stacking plates becomes a less effective way of increasing your EHP than increasing your base HP which multiplies into your EHP. Is it simply at armor values about
17? At which point the armor adds 100% of HP to EHP? So adding HP will simply make EHP increase more? That doesn't sound plausibly. I guess I'm leaving out the gold costs of hp versus armor...

[_Archangel_]

In terms of ACTUAL DAMAGE mitigated, I would say that yes, buying stacks of armor is not as effective as balancing a reasonable amount of armor and a reason amount of actual HP

[noodle0117]

http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?p=301551#post301551

A poll for the controversial armor reduction topic.
Vote for your side!

[noodle0117]

I have a question. I realize the whole semantic misunderstanding, and that if adding 1 plate gives you 3 extra hits, 4 gets you 12. But my question is, and this is without having time to do math, I'll come back tomorrow and do some if still needed, at what point if an extra 10 armor less effective than adding hp? 10 armor adds 60% ehp. So for every current armor you have, adding hp will give you retroactive benefits, if that makes sense.

If I have to choose between adding another platemail onto my 100000, 10 hp armor Legionnaire, or adding 10 hp, intuition suggests the latter, as the 10 hp will make all the previous armor I have more effective, does that make any sense? So I'm guessing at some point stacking plates becomes a less effective way of increasing your EHP than increasing your base HP which multiplies into your EHP. Is it simply at armor values about
17? At which point the armor adds 100% of HP to EHP? So adding HP will simply make EHP increase more? That doesn't sound plausibly. I guess I'm leaving out the gold costs of hp versus armor...
for every ~16.7 armor you gain, your EHP doubles. There is a point where stacking hp instead of armor becomes more effective, but that does not mean that armor is diminishing.

[Karmashock]

This is a stupid argument based entirely on semantics. In general, everyone is right from their own perspective and are really just trying to force people to look at it from their view point... which is both egocentric and irritating. I am not saying this in general about ANY discussion or argument. This is a comment on this specific disagreement.

Look at it anyway you like... it really doesn't matter. Armor gives enhanced durability at a fixed rate per point of armor in a linear function. It also has diminishing utility for any hero when considered per slots open and gold investment. No one would argue that buying 6 sets of armor is as good an investment as buying the first set of armor.

And those are only two different ways of looking at it... there are at least 6 different ways of looking at that i know of that are all valid.

Please stop insisting that everyone not only be right but also be right while saying it in the way that makes you the most happy. Just be happy they're right from that perspective and then kindly shut up.

[dreamex]

This is a stupid argument based entirely on semantics. In general, everyone is right from their own perspective and are really just trying to force people to look at it from their view point... which is both egocentric and irritating. I am not saying this in general about ANY discussion or argument. This is a comment on this specific disagreement.

Look at it anyway you like... it really doesn't matter. Armor gives enhanced durability at a fixed rate per point of armor in a linear function. It also has diminishing utility for any hero when considered per slots open and gold investment. No one would argue that buying 6 sets of armor is as good an investment as buying the first set of armor.

And those are only two different ways of looking at it... there are at least 6 different ways of looking at that i know of that are all valid.

Please stop insisting that everyone not only be right but also be right while saying it in the way that makes you the most happy. Just be happy they're right from that perspective and then kindly shut up.

I hope to god that this isn't what the kiddies telling people it's diminishing are basing there argument on.

Realistically, no one would argue that buying 6 of ANYTHING is as good an investment as buying the first one.

Except for 6 Hacks of course, that is the best investment ever.

To the poster previous. Armor from a cost perspective adds 6% e.HP per point, from a survivability perspective Platemail is a 60% increase in your Effective HP for 1400g, or 23.3~g per percentile increase.

A Beastheart is a flat 250 HP boost to your HP for 1100g, with 1100g you are hoping to achieve a 47% increase in your e.HP (translated from the value that armor would've given you for gold cost). The point where a Beastheart will improve your e.HP by 47% is when you're base HP is 531.9 and the Beastheart would bring that up to 781.9.

Any higher base HP and you would have better e.HP per gold spent by stacking platemails over stacking Beasthearts with respects to physical damage only. (assuming you had no armor to start with)

Obviously in real world applications you must also mitigate against true and magic damage which require additional HP reserves along with other stats such as regeneration, damage, move speed etc thus no one would be stacking platemails anyways... just like no one would be stacking beasthearts or boots of speed or whatever it is else that's in the world, but not because of diminishing effects, only because there is a need for balance elsewhere.

You would never reject an items value because you deem the armor to be worthless if you've already got a certain amount. It's still valuable provided that you need to survive against a physical opponent, which does happen often.

I bet the same people who argue that armor is diminishing in value are the same people who get Helm of the Black Legion on Legionnaire and say it's necessary to jungle.

[SeomanCC]

This is the very definition of diminishing return. The first 10 armor absorbs 5 damage per armor effectively. Your second 10 armor (costing the same gold) absorbs 2.5 damage per armor point. A third 10 would absorb 1.25 damage per armor point.

This is a diminishing return that applies to actual damage taken when stacking armor...





People need to stop saying this. It just shows how badly you fail at math.

Let's say that you start with 0 armor. You get an item that has 10 armor and reach 50% mitigation. Wohoo.

Then you buy another of the same item. You now have 20 armor, but... only 75% mitigation.

So you're going "omg armor has diminishing returns, it's useless after a while".

WRONG!

Look, there are many examples of this on various gaming forums online, but here's a quick explanation of why you're wrong.

10 armor gives 50% mitigation, which means it reduces a 100 dmg hit to 50 dmg.

10 additional armor gives only 25% more mitigation, and it reduces a 100 dmg hit to a 25 dmg hit.

While you may think that it is becoming less effective, it actually is not. When you had 10 armor, you were taking 50 dmg. Now that you have 20 armor, you're taking 25 dmg, i.e. 50% less damage than you were taking before. This is the same as originally:

0 armor > 10 armor = take 50% less damage than before
10 armor > 20 armor = take 50% less damage than before (i.e. when you had 10 armor)

This means that armor's value stays the same even though the amount of total mitigation you get decreases. Which is normal because if it didn't decrease then 20 armor would give you 100% mitigation and that is silly right?

[Melchizedek]

Thanks both of you, but I think I didn't quite make my idea clear enough. What I was thinking was that all previously bought armor makes any further hp you buy more effective. So, the more armor you already have, the better buying hp becomes for purposes of physical EHP. So, in a sense, since EHP is not just based off one stat, armor, but two, armor and hp, stacking them in a balanced manner will give you more EHP per gold than just maxxing one of them.

[dreamex]

Thanks both of you, but I think I didn't quite make my idea clear enough. What I was thinking was that all previously bought armor makes any further hp you buy more effective. So, the more armor you already have, the better buying hp becomes for purposes of physical EHP. So, in a sense, since EHP is not just based off one stat, armor, but two, armor and hp, stacking them in a balanced manner will give you more EHP per gold than just maxxing one of them.

This is true and there is a function to describe this, but since it's a loaded question in that people don't stack beasthearts or platemails it is hard to do a gold based comparison.

You can model this mathematically and I believe it comes out to trying to balance each point of armor with around 20-30 HP.

[Jeza]

Thought Dreamex's post was interesting, didn't really know much about armour as I usually don't play chars that really require it.

[Workdawg]

I threw together a spreadsheet to determine a breakpoint where other items becomes more cost effective than armor. Turns out a Beastheart never really does, but a Behemoth's Heart is a good option...


http://honwiki.net/w/images/c/cc/Armor_Analysis.xls

[Zeons]

My Calculations:


Dmg Red = (.06*Armor)/(1 + .06Armor)

EHP = HP / (1 - Dmg Red)
EHP = HP / [1 - (.06*Armor)/(1 + .06Armor)]
EHP = HP / [(1 + .06Armor - .06*Armor)/(1 + .06Armor)]
EHP = HP / [1/(1 + .06Armor)]
EHP = HP(1 + .06Armor)
EHP = HP + .06*HP*Armor

After finding the EHP equation i did the derivatives:

In order to Armor: 0.06*HP - This means that by every extra point of armor you get, your EHP increases in 6% of your HP.

In order to Hitpoints: 1 + 0.06*Armor - This means that by every extra point you add of HP your EHP increases in 1 plus 6% of your armor.

When to buy armor or HP?

We should stop adding armor and buying HP when: 1 + .06A > .06HP

Plz take into consideration the price of each item when calculating.

[Workdawg]

It's been a long time since I've done algebra like that... but that doesn't seem right to me. According to that, you buy armor until you have 1 more armor than HP. So for a hero who's got 1500 HP, you'll need 1501 armor before you want to buy HP?

1500 Armor: 1+.06*1500 = 91
1500 HP: .06 * 1500 = 90


EHP = HP / [1 - (.06*Armor)/(1 + .06Armor)]
It looks like there might be an error in step 3... how does the above turn into the below?
EHP = HP / [(1 + .06Armor - .06*Armor)/(1 + .06Armor)]

There should be parenthesis around the Dam Reduction segment...

EHP = HP / [1 - ((.06A)/(1 + .06A))]

[ElementUser]

It's been a long time since I've done algebra like that... but that doesn't seem right to me. According to that, you buy armor until you have 1 more armor than HP. So for a hero who's got 1500 HP, you'll need 1501 armor before you want to buy HP?

1500 Armor: 1+.06*1500 = 91
1500 HP: .06 * 1500 = 90


EHP = HP / [1 - (.06*Armor)/(1 + .06Armor)]
It looks like there might be an error in step 3... how does the above turn into the below?
EHP = HP / [(1 + .06Armor - .06*Armor)/(1 + .06Armor)]

There should be parenthesis around the Dam Reduction segment...

EHP = HP / [1 - ((.06A)/(1 + .06A))]

Your EHP Formula is wrong, it should be this:


EHP: MHP + 0.06(armor)(MHP) = MHP [1 + 0.06(armor)]

@Karmashock: It's actually hard to distinguish you from the crowd now because you removed your signature O.o

[MrTortoise1]

deleted

[Workdawg]

Your EHP Formula is wrong, it should be this:

None of those are my formulas except the chunk at the top.

[bisnull]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

[ElementUser]

None of those are my formulas except the chunk at the top.

The last formula Zeons posted was identical to the EHP portion, I don't know where you got confused because he got to the same formula I had in the end

[Pyrate]

Its not the armour that is stable, people are correct in saying armour has diminishing returns, the thing is though that Damage Resistance is increased in effectiveness the higher it goes (a problem that has arose in many games)

So while armour has dimishing returns, Damage Resistance has an increase of effectiveness, and in the end they even each other out.

[arcainic]

better to go with high armor and behemoth heart imho

[Puchi]

this is lol... you are all quoting one another stop wasting your time and just play the game.

armor is easy to figure out..
if you face alot of physical dmg, you buy armor ..
if you face alot of casters you buy shaman's ..
easy as pie

[EnragedCamel]

Once again, the fact that there is diminishing returns on the damage absorbed is meaningless. You are not - or at least should not be - calculating damage absorbed. You should be calculating how much longer you live for.

[dreamex]

Armor is diminishing

HP is diminishing

Damage is diminishing

Attack speed is diminishing

etc etc.

(everything in this game is diminishing apparently because people don't understand the term diminishing)

[Karmashock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

[Hash]

Reducing 5% of damage when you have no damage reduction is exactly the same as reducing 1% of damage when you have 80% damage reduction. They both give the same benefit. This little fact is why armor doesn't have diminishing returns.

/thread

[Hash]

In the next thread people will try to claim that 0.99999... != 1

[ColdBreeze]

Ganking has diminishing returns.

[BuuK]

Wait, who's this person complaining about diminishing returns?

I don't get the point of this thread, practically everyone knows about armor's gain and I've never seen anyone complain.

[Karmashock]

Everyone still arguing about this is stupid.

It's a disagreement that is ultimately about language and grammar... not armor. This disagreement has literally NOTHING to do with armor. When it comes to the armor itself everyone agrees.

Anyone that wishes to jam a #2 dildo up their backside and continue this discussion may of course continue.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[TheSNGuy]

It actually does have diminishing returns if u take into account that not all the damage dealt to you is going to be physical.

If 50% of the damage is magic and 50% physical and 10 armor reduces physical damage 50% trhen you've just reduced total damage taken by 25%. The next 10 armor brings it to 75% physical reduction and the total reduction goes to 37.5% which is only an additional 17% reduction of damage (12.5/75).

Basically this means in almost all normal games stacking armor is not a cost effective defensive strategy.

[dreamex]

It actually does have diminishing returns if u take into account that not all the damage dealt to you is going to be physical.

If 50% of the damage is magic and 50% physical and 10 armor reduces physical damage 50% trhen you've just reduced total damage taken by 25%. The next 10 armor brings it to 75% physical reduction and the total reduction goes to 37.5% which is only an additional 17% reduction of damage (12.5/75).

Basically this means in almost all normal games stacking armor is not a cost effective defensive strategy.

Are you retarded or something.

Diminishing returns means that the effect of an object decreases as you get more of it.

The effect of armor never decreases, it continues to provide the same static 6% increase to e.HP each and every point from 1-10000000000000

Your example doesn't have anything to do with the value of armor, only that stacking armor is not a good way to prevent magical damage (Which I hope everybody knows already).

That doesn't mean that armor is diminishing in any way at all.

You might as well say that Attack speed is diminishing because half of your damage is done by spells.

Or Attack damage is diminishing because half of your damage is done by spells.

Or mana is diminishing because half of your damage is done by attacks.

Do you not see how you're arguing something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

[Popo]

The point of this thread is misunderstood by so many people.