TEH - Total Effective Health, or; a guide on how to build a tank properly.

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ricklessabandon

qa analyst

11-27-2011
2 of 5 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Riolu View Post
What I think he's trying to say with regards to EHP is that every point of armor/mr gives the same amount of EHP. While every successive point of armor gives less of a % increase, it gives the same flat increase.
i understand the common argument. the problem with it is that it's like saying that i'm going to convert 'mitigation' into 'kittens' and that there are no diminishing returns for that conversion. the oversight is that it doesn't matter that there aren't diminishing returns in that isolated kitten vacuum because once you start reintroduce 'kittens' to all the other factors that mitigation was involved with, 'kittens' would then have diminishing returns again.

and, you know, i'm still going to buy whichever items are most valuable holistically.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ko Hakoo

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-27-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricklessabandon View Post
resistances do work on diminishing returns. whenever you gain another point of armor, each point of armor is worth less damage reduction. this is why each point of penetration gives a larger damage increase as you penetrate closer to zero.

if resistances didn't have diminishing returns, every 'ehp' guide ever would say 'always buy mitigation because diminishing returns don't exist.' it's very silly to see people write 'armor doesn't have diminishing returns, but you should stop buying it at this point and buy health instead because the armor becomes less valuable.' it's always saddening to see it mentioned on the guides & strats forum because i just know i'm going to hear it parroted later on.

really though, the important thing that everyone seems to miss is that 'ehp' calculations aren't very helpful in the grand scheme of things because players are rarely in a situation in which they are forced to make a choice between health and mitigation without other factors (like passives) weighing in. for example if you need to build against a carry, and your team would benefit most with a randuin's omen because of the active, you're just going to build omen--likely with heart of gold as your first piece for the g/10. another common example is atmog's--you build warmog's first, not because of some long-winded 'ehp' post someone wrote on the forums, but because warmog's needs time to ramp up and atma's requires a certain amount of health to justify the purchase.
No matter what your current armor is at, 1 additional armor is going to allow you to last 1% longer against physical damage. Of course you are diminishing less and less actual damage, it all depends on how you look at it.

That doesnt mean that there arent better options. There is a point where buying health will be more effective than buying armor, but I believe this is due to the fact that health benefits from the armor you already have (each point of health increases in effective health with each point of armor you already have).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BungalowBill

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-27-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko Hakoo View Post
No matter what your current armor is at, 1 additional armor is going to allow you to last 1% longer against physical damage. Of course you are diminishing less and less actual damage, it all depends on how you look at it.
No, because it does not increase the actual mitigation. The number is there but the % isn't increased.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reiver

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-27-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricklessabandon View Post
resistances do work on diminishing returns. whenever you gain another point of armor, each point of armor is worth less damage reduction. this is why each point of penetration gives a larger damage increase as you penetrate closer to zero.

if resistances didn't have diminishing returns, every 'ehp' guide ever would say 'always buy mitigation because diminishing returns don't exist.' it's very silly to see people write 'armor doesn't have diminishing returns, but you should stop buying it at this point and buy health instead because the armor becomes less valuable.' it's always saddening to see it mentioned on the guides & strats forum because i just know i'm going to hear it parroted later on.

really though, the important thing that everyone seems to miss is that 'ehp' calculations aren't very helpful in the grand scheme of things because players are rarely in a situation in which they are forced to make a choice between health and mitigation without other factors (like passives) weighing in. for example if you need to build against a carry, and your team would benefit most with a randuin's omen because of the active, you're just going to build omen--likely with heart of gold as your first piece for the g/10. another common example is atmog's--you build warmog's first, not because of some long-winded 'ehp' post someone wrote on the forums, but because warmog's needs time to ramp up and atma's requires a certain amount of health to justify the purchase.
rick I disagree

Each point of armor increases your EHP by the exact same amount, by your argument AD has diminishing returns too.

These aren't true.

However, every point of HP you buy makes your Armor and MR you had more effective, and every point of armor and MR you buy makes every point of HP more effective, since they scale against each other multiplicatively.

The armor doesn't become less effective, it makes health become more effective, and once you have enough, makes armor less effective costwise than health.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Keyen

Member

11-27-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricklessabandon View Post
resistances do work on diminishing returns. whenever you gain another point of armor, each point of armor is worth less damage reduction. this is why each point of penetration gives a larger damage increase as you penetrate closer to zero.
Sorry, but no.

Say "resistances do work on diminishing returns" means you also say "HPs do work on diminishing returns".

Each point of armor/mres worth same TEH no matter how much you have, exactly like HPs.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ricklessabandon

qa analyst

11-27-2011
3 of 5 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko Hakoo View Post
There is a point where buying health will be more effective than buying armor, but I believe this is due to the fact that health benefits from the armor you already have
it's a wording thing. it's silly.

even within an 'ehp' system there are diminishing returns if you do all of the math, which is why health and mitigation take turns being more valuable.

we can even use a common example:
-a champion has 2000 health, and 0 armor.
-for the sake of math, we'll say that 10 health and 1 armor have the exact same gold cost.
-since we're examining the potential of diminishing returns on armor, we'll use the '10 health' purchase as a basis of comparison for effectiveness. we'll call the effectiveness gained from purchasing 10 health '1 cookie'.

in this example, our first purchase option looks like:
10 health = 10 ehp
1 armor = 20 ehp
1 armor = 2 cookies

cool, so given a choice between 1 cookie or 2 cookies for the same price, we want 2 cookies so we'll purchase armor.
since armor isn't supposed to have diminishing returns according to the 'ehp' model, we'll make this decision 99 times more.

let's look at our 101st purchase option with 2000 health and 100 armor:
10 health = 20 ehp
1 armor = 20 ehp
1 armor = 1 cookie

so, um, weird. it looks like purchasing armor would be half as effective as it was before... that doesn't make any sense if we're using 'ehp' but we'll pick armor again since it doesn't have any diminishing returns in that model.

let's look at our 201st purchase option with 2000 health and 200 armor:
10 health = 30 ehp
1 armor = 20 ehp
1 armor = 0.66 cookies

and look at that--armor is worth even less after stacking more of it! 'ehp' why have you failed us?!


so, it's pretty obvious that whether you're using 'ehp' or the actual numbers being used in league of legends, armor becomes less effective as you stack it.
you never see that in a post defending 'ehp' though because all they're focused on is the '1 armor = 1%' bit which is only one part of what needs to be evaluated.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fox P McCloud

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-27-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricklessabandon View Post
it's a wording thing. it's silly.

even within an 'ehp' system there are diminishing returns if you do all of the math, which is why health and mitigation take turns being more valuable.

we can even use a common example:
-a champion has 2000 health, and 0 armor.
-for the sake of math, we'll say that 10 health and 1 armor have the exact same gold cost.
-since we're examining the potential of diminishing returns on armor, we'll use the '10 health' purchase as a basis of comparison for effectiveness. we'll call the effectiveness gained from purchasing 10 health '1 cookie'.

in this example, our first purchase option looks like:
10 health = 10 ehp
1 armor = 20 ehp
1 armor = 2 cookies

cool, so given a choice between 1 cookie or 2 cookies for the same price, we want 2 cookies so we'll purchase armor.
since armor isn't supposed to have diminishing returns according to the 'ehp' model, we'll make this decision 99 times more.

let's look at our 101st purchase option with 2000 health and 100 armor:
10 health = 20 ehp
1 armor = 20 ehp
1 armor = 1 cookie

so, um, weird. it looks like purchasing armor would be half as effective as it was before... that doesn't make any sense if we're using 'ehp' but we'll pick armor again since it doesn't have any diminishing returns in that model.

let's look at our 201st purchase option with 2000 health and 200 armor:
10 health = 30 ehp
1 armor = 20 ehp
1 armor = 0.66 cookies

and look at that--armor is worth even less after stacking more of it! 'ehp' why have you failed us?!


so, it's pretty obvious that whether you're using 'ehp' or the actual numbers being used in league of legends, armor becomes less effective as you stack it.
you never see that in a post defending 'ehp' though because all they're focused on is the '1 armor = 1%' bit which is only one part of what needs to be evaluated.
Why are you suddenly making health more valuable, progressively, as far as EHP goes? Also, I could be totally wrong about this, but....your post comes off as a bit snarky--as if you're aggravated/frustrated.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Myrmidont

Senior Member

11-27-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricklessabandon View Post
red's nice post
hi, what about AS reduction? its a valuable stat, but how does it add to armors scaling late game?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Arance

Senior Member

11-27-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox P McCloud View Post
Why are you suddenly making health more valuable, progressively?
Because HP and AR multiply to get the EHP. So the Armor he already has is making that new HP he's buying more valuable.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Spencer

Senior Member

11-27-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricklessabandon View Post
...
Since you are hanging out then:

When do you find it is in your best interest to go HP over Mit(igation) or vice versa? Just the utility it brings to the team?

Wouldn't that make FoN or Warmogs worthless (if memory serves, they don't have direct utility)?

This is a question that I have always wondered.

In a bruiser type character I usually buy two mit. pieces depending on enemy team comp. When should I pick up health instead?