Thread:ClariS/@comment-3017217-20141026134417/@comment-4881935-20141030155720

Ntoulinho wrote: Our definition of Dimishing returns was always the same.

Our definitions of Marginal Output are what differs

Omg, i have been telling you this for like the last 10 posts, but at least you finally acknowledges it.

The reason why Marginal output is the difference is because that's it overall definition. That's how it is defined. In econ, when talking about marginal input/output, they mean the difference from point A to point B.

The reason why it's not based on the Ratio is because, in order for the ratio to be true, there must also be a condition of which both the output and the input start off a the exact same spot. If they don't start off at the same point, every ratio will be off.

for example, let's look at a champion AD growth rate with their total base AD:
 * champion Karth's AD is 45 (+3 per level).
 * Output starts at 45, while input starts at 0
 * Because the output starts at 45, instead of 0, if we use your illogically equation of Ii / I > Oi / O = dimishing returns,
 * this means it would be classified as diminishing returns.
 * in fact, to take it to another level, this would mean, anything in the world would be classified as diminishing returns, as long as you make the output start anywhere above 0.