4,660 Pages


aka Clear

  • I live in in a wonderful world
  • My occupation is everything.
  • I am having a nice day
an anonymous contributor
  Loading editor
  • Farewell, old friend.

    I don't suppose you have Steam, so we could still talk from time to time?

      Loading editor
  • I might be naive,gullible, etc but Here Double Slap asked me to elaborate on derivatives and diminishing functions. I think he qenuinly wants information!

      Loading editor
    • I'm very sorry for this reply. Been gone. Do you still need me?

        Loading editor
    • an anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  •   Loading editor
  • Be civil. Previous warnings and advice stand.

      Loading editor
    • I am merely standing a fact . The cost analysis section that is being use currently has nothing to back it up. It's not base on anything. It's a theory based on theorized value (that has no evidence to support itself). I still attend to remove regardless Teh (once I come back or so), if the section remains to be based on theorized values. And to be clear, the theorized value I'm referring to are the value given to the stats, such as AD = 36g.

      The theorized value for the stats is:

      • Pick lowest tier item with worst ratio.
      • Use the ratio of stat to gold
      • Ignore all future placement and/or conditions regarding the stats <--- this step has nothing to support itself and completely ignores the item of which the stat was found. Nor does there exist anything in the game that would suggest this is true. This step makes the jump from 'amount of gold to buy the item' to 'this is how much the stat is worth universally at any instance of time'. This here is why it's just a theorized value. Nothing before supports its existence or justify why this leap of thinking exist and why ignoring so much conditions exist.
        Loading editor
    • Gold efficiency may be a theoretical number but the way it's calculated tends to be very methodical. If you as a champion like Riven want AD, you'd rather buy it from something that's 50 AD for 4000 gold than 10 AD for 1000 gold.

      Just like numbers like EHP, that the game engine doesn't directly use to calculate gameplay, gold efficiency helps players roughly gauge the effectiveness of items. If you want more accuracy you have to add penetration to your calculations.

      There's no problem using stat to gold as a basis for what you want as long as you are aware of exceptions. It's a very fast way to gauge the power of items.

      Finally, the wiki is a place where everyone can contribute. I think the majority of people find gold efficiency to be useful, and you as one user have decided to remove it despite numerous protest. If you really hate it that much you should start a discussion.

        Loading editor
    • an anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • Have Checked https://www.fictionpress.com/s/3108314/1/Teh-Anonymous Almost 730 times now, do i get an achivement on march the 13th? :P

    P.S. Long time no see. ^^

      Loading editor
  • Hi,

    Sorry for editing the Corki, Mundo, Ezreal, Gangplank, Kha'Zix and Lucian page directly! I have in stead edited the Template:Data page for each champion. However, the changes don't show up on the champion pages (I edited 22 data pages in total to correct outdated difficulty ratings). Can you help with this?

    Compare e.g. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Corki to http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Data_Corki in regards to difficulty rating.

      Loading editor
    • Someone in chat helped me. I purged the pages and it's all good now.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry for the late reply, but that's nice that someone was already able to help you. And you don't need to apologize for the pages you edited by mistake.

        Loading editor
    • an anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • Can you at least write some words in the summary section if you go on rampage and delete everything other people worked hours for?

      Loading editor
    • My reasoning. You don't need to read everything that comes after the large break.

      Now, onto your wording. 'Rampage' and and 'work for hours'. That makes me laugh. I made only 1 revert with all my other edits have been working on data templates, and the thing I reverted should have not taken that much time to make.

      And to be frank, there are more mistakes that I need to go fixing, but I'm just waiting to finishing writing the guidline and blog.

      Now a better question, do you even know what the number repersents and how it is determined? The value given to stats are not the stat's actual value, it's just a reference point for the item. When you don't match the reference point, the value you give is meaningless, such as shield point being = to health.

        Loading editor
    • Wow. you put the meaning of "internet trolling" on a whole new level I guess.

      Well, if thats the only way you can get some happiness in your life, k den...

        Loading editor
    • I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you wrote because it sounds like you're accusing me of being a troll.

      Care to clarify yourself or are you just having a knee jerk reaction because I made 1 change that you don't agree.

        Loading editor
    • an anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • Excuse my prior misjudgement; I used the term Diminishing Returns while being unable to define it.

    After 2 weeks in the Economic Sciences faculty the one I will use is Elasticity

    The formula of which for x=input y=output is

    ε = Δx / Δy / x

    Δ stands for διαφορά which is greek for difference which is the result of subtracting

    Δx= x2 - x1

    Δy= y2 - y

    Δx / Δy will ALWAYS equal 10 for each 1  point of armour

    so you get 

    ε= 10 / x

    The elastity is INVERSELY proportinal to your Armour

    The elasticity is similar to the derivative(they hold the same sign) but while I am mediocre in Economic Analysis I really SUCK in Mathematic Analysis!

    And I don't know why............................ in school I was awesome in Euclidean geometry amazing in Probability theory terrific in Trigonomety great in Analytic geometry and good in Algebra(I really didn't like Algebra)

    generaly I was good in maths why now in college are they so difficult............................ 

      Loading editor
    • View all 24 replies
    • Because anyone can write anything in the internet.

      It IS the compendium( I will disagree with Cambridge on its property of being short) of ALL the knowledge people have attained.

      Nonetheless on the internet you can even find 1+1=3.

      Something is correct if and only if noone can find something against it.

      But to be false a single case suffices .

      Q: What is the actual definition of elasticity (for econ) that you find in books or online?

      A; Any words written in any book would be appropriate.

        Loading editor
    • if this is your answer, then there is nothing to talk about because it's gonna go nowhere. Nothing I say will matter to you so I don't care on trying any more. And with the fact that this disscusion isn't even important for anything, I really don't care and I seriously don't know why you're even talking to me about any of this (but I don't care to know anymore).

      Now if you don't mind, please stop talking to me. I have put up with for way too long and I am losing almost my patience with you. Do not write on my wall for any reason, except on a case of someone vandlizing or abusing someone else. Other than that, do not write/reply to me. I don't want to hear from you, at all.

      Now, good bye and have a nice day.

        Loading editor
    • an anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
  • http://forums.eune.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=6485502#post6485502  Ignoring his small grammar mistake.

    ReturnS IS instead of ARE.

    Moonleaf admited they HAVE implemented those.

    I disagree with the "joke" on AD has diminishing returns.

    What does buying Attack Damage increase? Do those not double when AD does?

    Buying Resists increases what(mainly)? Damage Reduction.

    100 Armour -> 100 / (100 + 100) = 0.5

    Double the value of armor 200 -> 100 / (100 + 200) - 1/3

    Reduction did not accordingly "double" better yet :

    Doubling the armour did not halve the physical damage taken

      Loading editor
    NeonSpotlight closed this thread because:
    Requested by ClariS
    22:30, October 30, 2014
    • View all 71 replies
    • Ntoulinho wrote: Damage Reduction = 0.9900990099 ^ Resists

      Let's test that little formula of yours. I have exactly 100 armor, which according to your formula would give me ~0.3697 damage reduction. Whether this is a percentage or a decimal ratio is irrelevant, because the result is wrong: 100 armor gives you exactly 50% damage reduction against physical damage.

      Your formula makes no sense on multiple levels: aside from the fact that it has no relation to any actual damage reduction formulas, it also causes you to become squishier if you build resists: you're multiplying a number between 0 and 1 by itself, which means that the higher the exponent, the smaller the result.

      "Moonleaf said so" is also not a valid argument. Perhaps he said that resistances had diminishing returns, and perhaps he looked at how it affected damage reduction, but as established above that is not the correct metric by which you measure diminishing returns here. Not only has your own formula been disproven, but it's also been proven that resistances have no diminishing returns. Continuing to argue will not improve anyone's opinion of you here.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, i fail at giving metorphores, and also, my point was completely missed. pointless. Regardless, Ntoulinho you got to stop using that wrothless mutliplier of 0.9900990099. It's wrong. It's always wrong. It has always been wrong and we keep telling you it's wrong.

      does this make sense to you:

      Damage Reduction = (effective health2 / effective health1) ^ Resists

      your math has no logic nor does your math relate to dimishing returns. I keep telling you it's not related. I'm a math major who minored in econ. I know this for a fact. The logic behind what you are doing makes no sense.

      Actually, screw this, I'm closing this thread. Ntoulinho, go learn what dimishing return means and its equations. We're not getting anywhere.

        Loading editor
  • I am not willing to do the "same" mistake twice! I wish to know why my comment was removed and whether or not should I go "higher" in the hierarchy like last time?

      Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.