Talk:Kayle/@comment-4881935-20130118012005/@comment-2124153-20130118210241

''To your extreme example, the one who started with 0 armor penetration will gain more out of the 50% armor penetration. He reduces 500 million armor which reduces the enemy effective health by 500 million percent, while the other one would decrease it by 50 million. Huge difference.''

I said 100 billion, not one billion. Regardless, both champions roughly double their damage output by adding the 50% penetration item. Truth. You need to look at the relative damage done.

''That is a huge misconception. % reduction/pen does not directly increases your damage. ''

This is a non sequitur. The only function of Armor that we care about when it comes to reduction/penetration, is the effect on damage. Penetration and reduction will directly increase the damage that you deal to targets, relative to baseline.

''And for your math, how does: (new reduction/old reduction = increase boost) even make sense when they don't have a linear progression. Your finding the percentage difference but yet there is a exponential rate of increase the bigger the difference.''

My math makes sense purely from the standpoint of the damage formula. It's a fact that each point of Armor/MR removed grants a higher percentage increase in damage dealt, the closer that you approach zero. You "effective health" idea is fine for explaining why the second 100 points of Armor are just as good for mitigation as the first 100 points, but "effective health" does not tell us ANYTHING about the effects of percentage reduction/penetration.

Armor and MR reduce damage dealt. Given a specific value of Armor/MR and penetration/reduction, we can see the difference in outputs. I chose a value that would show SYNERGY between Kayle's passive and TBC's shred, since you were claming that SYNERGY did not exist here. Given what SYNERGY means, we can conclude that my example proves your assertion incorrect.

You can multiply those "increase boost" percentages by actual damage numbers in order to arrive at a real-life scenario. This is the proof of the example.