### Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

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

IS1281a2aa64f651d96c2ca

Senior Member

Quote:

@Fortran77: Why are you insisting on using a measurement that describes weight to describe height? They are two completely unrelated measurements and do not belong in the same formulas. Just because they are describing the same object does not mean you have to make them relate to each other.

Though I think it's irrelevant whether my definition of diminishing returns matches the one used in economics, I'm willing to show you that it's no less accurate than your definition to put this to rest.

The law of diminishing returns states that as you keep increasing one production factor, your returns will keep decreasing. Now the fact that people armor does not have diminishing returns implies one major thing: we've abstracted the concepts of production factor and return. That is, we understand that the law isn't specifically about production factors or returns, but it's about their relationship.

So if armor can be production factor and +EHP can be a return, why can't +%EHP/EHP be a return? We've already abstracted the concept of returns to include +EHP. On what basis will you say that +EHP is allowed to be a return while +%EHP/EHP isn't? After all, neither of these is the same kind of return as in economics. To define the return as simply +EHP is only useful when you have someone who thinks armor has diminishing returns but HP doesn't.

As I've shown before, if diminishing return is defined in terms of +EHP, then it has absolutely nothing to do with finding optimal HP and armor combinations. By defining it differently, however, you can make it into a useful concept with explanatory power and intuitive appeal. Though as I see it, I don't even really have to justify why one should use one definition over the other. I honestly don't care. The main thing I want to make clear is that there is no fallacy in thinking of diminishing returns differently. It's important to be aware of the context here: when you're talking about optimizing EHP, you want people to understand your arguments. If defining diminishing returns as % can help you make your argument clearer or more intuitive, then power to you.

Basically, I'm saying that the next time you see someone make a thread about EHP and the OP uses the phrase 'diminishing returns', don't rush to correct him if he's logically consistent about how he uses it. Not only is an ultimately pointless debate, but you end up missing out on what's relevant because you focus on what's irrelevant. For example, not one person bothered to point out that there are several serious mistakes in the OP's guide because everyone got derailed by the 'diminishing returns' debate.

Asgrim

Member

Quote:
Texas Snyper:
The sheer lack of understanding of what I have been posting made me think a response was unnecessary. Every time those definitions were referring to "others" as you so poignantly highlighted was talking about how those "others" were remaining static and untouched and yet you keep talking about them as a ratio to everything else when those definitions mention nothing of ratios but simple quantitative input to quantitative output.

You still haven't shown me a situation where a chain vest will give a champion anything less than 45 armor. A discussion goes both ways, yet you continue to fail to supply me with the proper examples I am asking for that will illustrate what you are arguing despite the fact that I have given example after example as well as provide outside sources that support my statements.

Yet again, you agree with my argument with your example, yet act like it doesn't.

Just as in the definitions, and just as in every example I've given to showcase the the system is LoL works, if you focus on only ONE value (and let the others remain static), you end up with diminishing returns with regards to that specific statistic. The metric VALUE does not decrease, but the returns gained IS decreased, and the percent values of that displays the information quite nicely. Because of the multiplicative nature of the correlations, however, the effect of raising multiple values together means these returns, while STILL diminishing, outputs a higher value then just a single value raised.

That exactly defines diminishing returns as it applies to values in a system or equation.

Nevermind that the post you never responded too (and still haven't) was pointing out diminishing returns can apply to entire systems (such as League of Legends, where all stats are part of this system) when you told me it can ONLY apply to singular example relationships of two simple values.

You still have not responded to that, you still have not debunked anything I've said about this, only gone onto a new point in a wrong, and very circular argument.

"There are diminishing returns."
"There are NOT any diminishing returns!"
"The value of one stat gained while metrically the same, returns less effect the more stacked"
"The metric value is all that matters, percentages isn't real math and doesn't show anything of value here, and your overall DPS will still climb at the same rate. You only change due to gold optimization!"
"Percentages DO show how much is gained/returned from metric values acquired when displayed as against total returns from all stats, and it displays diminishing values for stacked statistics."
"The definition of Diminishing Returns only applies to one input, and the output of that, not entire groups or systems."
"The definitions displays references to the term while applying only to a single input and it's output, is used in large systems and equations, and I AM talking about it as it applies to only one statistic (whatever stat you stack) and it's output."
"You have a lack of understanding."

As your question of chain vests, I have stated in almost every post that the metric value of gain stays the same. You will always gain the same amount of base stat from buying that base item. However, the effective amount returned diminishes as the statistic is increased.

Another example you never really responded too except to call percentages silly is the example of 10 to 20 damage, doubling output and making a huge difference, and 1 million damage to 1 million 10 damage, while METRICALLY the same amount of gain, returns a MUCH less difference in the damage gained from doing so.

Any investor can tell you, increase the amount of money you have by double? Way to go! Increase it by less then .01 percent? Your fired. Pretend the damage analogy right above was money, same exact example, same amount of METRIC gained, same amount of diminished return for that metric gained.

Remember, when we gain a statistic, it adds on top of whatever we already HAVE in that statistic. So obviously, if the metric gains remain the same, we have diminished returns from those gains. Someone else just said that too on the previous page...

Texas Snyper

Senior Member

Quote:
Asgrim:
Yet again, you agree with my argument with your example, yet act like it doesn't.

Just as in the definitions, and just as in every example I've given to showcase the the system is LoL works, if you focus on only ONE value (and let the others remain static), you end up with diminishing returns with regards to that specific statistic. The metric VALUE does not decrease, but the returns gained IS decreased, and the percent values of that displays the information quite nicely. Because of the multiplicative nature of the correlations, however, the effect of raising multiple values together means these returns, while STILL diminishing, outputs a higher value then just a single value raised.

Wrong, you are talking about the relationships of stats to each other. If what you were talking about was truly DR then you couldn't raise a stat's value back up by stacking more of other stats, but you can.

Quote:
That exactly defines diminishing returns as it applies to values in a system or equation.

Nevermind that the post you never responded too (and still haven't) was pointing out diminishing returns can apply to entire systems (such as League of Legends, where all stats are part of this system) when you told me it can ONLY apply to singular example relationships of two simple values.

You still have not responded to that, you still have not debunked anything I've said about this, only gone onto a new point in a wrong, and very circular argument.

"There are diminishing returns."
"There are NOT any diminishing returns!"
"The value of one stat gained while metrically the same, returns less effect the more stacked"
"The metric value is all that matters, percentages isn't real math and doesn't show anything of value here, and your overall DPS will still climb at the same rate. You only change due to gold optimization!"
"Percentages DO show how much is gained/returned from metric values acquired when displayed as against total returns from all stats, and it displays diminishing values for stacked statistics."
"The definition of Diminishing Returns only applies to one input, and the output of that, not entire groups or systems."
"The definitions displays references to the term while applying only to a single input and it's output, is used in large systems and equations, and I AM talking about it as it applies to only one statistic (whatever stat you stack) and it's output."
"You have a lack of understanding."

As your question of chain vests, I have stated in almost every post that the metric value of gain stays the same. You will always gain the same amount of base stat from buying that base item. However, the effective amount returned diminishes as the statistic is increased.

And you are still getting the same benefit out of the chain vest no matter how many you have so there are no DRs.

Quote:
Another example you never really responded too except to call percentages silly is the example of 10 to 20 damage, doubling output and making a huge difference, and 1 million damage to 1 million 10 damage, while METRICALLY the same amount of gain, returns a MUCH less difference in the damage gained from doing so.

Any investor can tell you, increase the amount of money you have by double? Way to go! Increase it by less then .01 percent? Your fired. Pretend the damage analogy right above was money, same exact example, same amount of METRIC gained, same amount of diminished return for that metric gained.

Remember, when we gain a statistic, it adds on top of whatever we already HAVE in that statistic. So obviously, if the metric gains remain the same, we have diminished returns from those gains. Someone else just said that too on the previous page...

DRs does not care about percentage gains unless you are using percentage output like Void Staff and LW. Flat gains that give flat returns are static gains no matter how much you already have. There are no DR simply because you have 1million armor. You buy 50 armor and you get 50 armor. Period. There is no "You buy 50 armor but only get 40 armor" situation.

You keep looking at static gains and expecting percent gains, which is just stupid.

Asgrim

Member

Quote:
Texas Snyper:
Wrong, you are talking about the relationships of stats to each other. If what you were talking about was truly DR then you couldn't raise a stat's value back up by stacking more of other stats, but you can.

And you are still getting the same benefit out of the chain vest no matter how many you have so there are no DRs.

DRs does not care about percentage gains unless you are using percentage output like Void Staff and LW. Flat gains that give flat returns are static gains no matter how much you already have. There are no DR simply because you have 1million armor. You buy 50 armor and you get 50 armor. Period. There is no "You buy 50 armor but only get 40 armor" situation.

You keep looking at static gains and expecting percent gains, which is just stupid.

If you cannot get 100% damage reduction from stacking armor, you have diminishing returns, as you gain less and less reduction from gaining more, even when the metric value gain remains the same.

And unless your really weird, percentages are only a mathematical representation of values, used to show relevant perspectives of those values. It's a pretty good perspective, considering, when factored out with all values and their corresponding output, it allows us to maximize the output by considering different values for the interior factors.

Saying it's not a real representation would not be true.

"Wrong, you are talking about the relationships of stats to each other. If what you were talking about was truly DR then you couldn't raise a stat's value back up by stacking more of other stats, but you can."

In actuality, you can't. Even when raising all stats together, they all receive diminishing returns. The only difference is, the output is higher because the correlation between stats is multiplicative. The actual values of each stat in that formula, however, still diminishes.

A good way to look at the formula is this; values a, b, and c. Let's say all these values = 1, and a fictional video game, those 3 values multiplied together determine damage dealt.

Now, were going to buy an item in this video game, and it's going to add 7 points to value a. 8x1x1=8. So, my total damage output now equals 8. Say instead, we bought different items, that added in 3 in a, 3 in b, and 1 in c, for a total of 7 value added. 4x4x2=32. MUCH better, but with the same overall value added. This is how this works.

Now, start looking at the percentage representation of the damage gained from stacking a single stat. With that 7 value added, our damage went from 1, to 8, so that's an 800% increase. Add another 7, our damage goes to 15, which is a 53.3 repeating percentage increase. Every time you add in this SAME metric value, the worth DECREASES in effective usage. Remember; I'm not translating these numbers into some magical language that's completely unrelated, percentages are a mathematical representation of how much damage we do NOW, versus how much we did BEFORE, when used here.

Now, with the value increase shared, these values STILL diminish individually as gains - it just has a much higher output due to the nature of the statistical relationship when turned into output.

Diminishing. Returns.

N8dGR8

Senior Member

Bookmark and bump
* n8