Talk:Armor/@comment-3529242-20130310065929/@comment-4087140-20130310091544

For purposes of relative increase, pretend you have 100 invisible armor. So "1 armor at 50 armor" is actually 1 armor at 150 armor, which increases your survivability by (1/150) 0. 6 %, and "1 AD at 50 AD" is just 1 AD at 50 AD, so of course the relative difference is larger. The appropriate comparison would be 1 AD at 150 AD, which increases your damage by (1/150) 0. 6 %.

So armor starts around 120-ish (including the "invisible" part) and AD starts around 60-ish. This is appropriate because AD is twice as expensive as armor, so it costs the same amount of gold to get the same relative increase.

AD scales with AS and crits, and armor scales with health. In this case, offense wins out because it helps put a time limit on games so it doesn't become a neverending turtle fest.

Reducing all incoming damage by 10, instead of armor's current calculations, is a horrible nerf on tanks in the late game. You're talking about reducing 400–500 damage attacks by 10 each. That's the equivalent of having about 2.5 points of "normal" armor as we currently know it.