Quote:

**PrincessDerpy**:

I hate you. I hate you because now I have to explain what I've explained a thousand times before. Let's get this over with.

I am going to use the relationship between 3 points to demonstrate why you don't understand the relationship between total armor and total damage mitigation

At 0 resist, you have 0% total mitigation

At 30 resist, you have 25% total mitigation

At 100 resist, you have 50% total mitigation

The first thing out of your mouth is probably "but I'm right and the numbers show that I am!". Let me tell you why you're wrong.

Going from 25% total mitigation to 50% is not the same as going from 0% to 25%, save in relation to RAW INCOMING DAMAGE. What actually happens when you go from 25% to 50% is you cut the damage you were taking at 25% down by a third, 33%. How does this work? At 25% mitigation you take 75% of raw incoming damage. At 50% you take 50% of raw incoming damage. Ergo, going from 25% to 50% mitigation actually improved your defenses by more than you think they should at first blush.

In fact, this works moving onward. Going from 50% total mitigation to 75% mitigation cuts the damage you were taking at 50% in half.

This is why resists actually do not have diminishing returns even though it looks like diminishing returns. Percentile damage mitigation becomes increasingly more valuable the closer its value gets to 100%. In fact, to make a point of absurdity, going from 98% to 99% would halve damage intake. Granted you would be taking piss all for damage at 98% mitigation, but you'd be taking half of that piss all at 99%.

In short, if the game scaled like this

0-0

30-25%

60-50%

90-75%

120-99.9%(recursive to infinity decimals)

Resists would actually scale exponentially with themselves because each additional 1% mitigation is actually more valuable than the last!

That's a very twisted view of how this works. You have to look at it in terms of practical use within the game, and also the argument at-hand in this thread.

Let's go back to my example.

You have an effective 30 MR, and a fed Karthus at level 18 has an ult that'll do 950 damage, base. You take 731.5 damage. You buy an addition 20 MR. Now the ult does 636.5 damage. For 20 MR, you just reduced the damage of the ult by almost 100.

Now the tank with an effective 150 MR takes the same ult. Take 380 damage. Tank buys 20 more MR, and the damage only reduces to 351.5 damage. So adding 20 MR on top of the 150 you already had is only removing 30 damage from the ult.

Last I checked a reduction of 100 damage is greater than a reduction of 30 damage. If resistance calculations were linear as you claim, adding 20 MR should be reducing the amount of incoming damage by the same amount (percent), regardless of how much MR you had before.

You are correct that each percentage point of mitigation has the same value with respect to the incoming damage. In this example, a single percentage point reduces the damage by 9.5. But the key here is that

*you don't buy resistances by percent reduction*. You buy mitigation by a separate value which is translated into a percent damage reduction based on a non-linear equation. Conversely, penetration is calculated based off your resistance value, not your calculated percentage of mitigation. Flat values of pen effectively subtract a flat value from your resitance. Percent pen effectively removes a percentage of your resistance value, which is translated into a percent mitigation afterwards. Percent pen does not act directly on your percent mitigation (having an effective 60% damage reduction is not reduced to 15% damage reduction by 45% magic pen).

When the other person here posted about the 'first 55% of your mitigation' going further than the last 45%, he wasn't talking with respect to percent damage reduction. He was talking about your actual MR value. Let's say somebody has 120 MR. If the enemy has 45% magic pen, you have an effective 66 MR. This translates into a change from 54% mitigation to about 40% mitigation. So after accounting for the 45% magic pen, the incoming damage is increased by 14%.

While your math is not wrong, your interpretation of the situation and the data, and how you applied that math (or perhaps more appropriately what math you are using), is off.