Thread:ClariS/@comment-3017217-20141026134417/@comment-1330314-20141029095949

Ntoulinho wrote: b=0 if the line passes throught the start of the axes

This is true, but also clearly not the case in this situation, where 0 armor still means you still have a certain amount of hitpoints, which you're factoring into your calculations when you shouldn't be.

Ntoulinho wrote: Nonetheless an inverse function IS still a function.

That still does not authorize you to apply flawed logic to this: linearity of a function's curve only indicates linearity of a function if it is a linear function in the first place. Inverse curves of functions with no diminishing returns will be concave, a fact you are unwilling to accept.

Ntoulinho wrote: I consider that which multiplies the Effective Health the output and not the BONUS Effective Health.

"That which multiplies the effective health" presumably being damage reduction. The issue here is that to calculate how much damage you can take the formula only makes sense if you apply it to a specific amount of health (100 armor at 1000 health and 100 armor at 2000 health won't let you take the same amount of damage), which just means that you're forced to calculate effective health anyway.

Ntoulinho wrote: Damage Reduction =100 / (100 + Armour) is that which Riot gives us it HAS diminishing returns and that which I requested to change

It does not give diminishing returns, as proven above. Not only are your arguments erroneous and devoid of mathematics, but they completely refuse to address the above mathematical proofs that resistances do not give diminishing returns. The existence of just one sound proof of a fact is enough to fully justify it, until it is disproven. This is not a debate, where you present arguments and counter-arguments to a third party. This is mathematics: your answer is either true or false, and so irrespective of your point of view. Unless you can refute the above proof that armor/MR provides constant returns, you and your opinion are wrong, plain and simple.