Dota mechanics are ALWAYS fun!

give my drow her fkin swag back

1rd thank you next

aah shit, here we go again

At the beggining you compare efficiency of corrozive haze on different armor values, and you say about 75% dmg amplify, and 16% (41 - 25) dmg amplify. These percents are percents of your base damage, and it is not consistent to use them to compare something. I mean, if you already deal 200% percent of base dmg without haze and you add another 100% by applying haze to it, it will simply mean that you'll need 20 seconds instead of 30 to kill target(bcs actual dmg will be multiplied by 3/2). But if you deal 1% of base dmg without haze and haze gives you 9% of base dmg, then you'll kill your target in 3 seconds instead of 30(bcs actual dmg will be multiplied by 10) which is much better than the previous example, although we added only 9% of base dmg instead of 100%

wont dazzle/drow be more effective?

@Sanitarium

I understand your argument and it is generally sound and it is the exact reason we argue about "low and high" value armor. Going from 1% damage going through (99% damage reduction) to 10% damage going through (90% damage reduction) is, indeed, a 10x (10% / 1%) increase in actual damage output, but it would mean that the target's armor was reduced from 199 armor to 92 armor (according to table provided in the post). Though the idea of using relative changes in damage output is still good.

In our example, the armor reduction is what is a given. Corrosive Haze LvL 3 is always -20 armor. When your armor-reducing effects are limited, like they generally are in a game of Dota, they are at their most effective when cutting into high-value armor.

Let's look at the relative effectiveness of armor reduction at values in the example we provided in the post: in **42 to 22 armor** case your actual damage changes by a factor of **1.65** (41.51% / 25.10%). In the case of **10 to -10 armor** it changes by a factor of **2.21** (137.68% / 62.32%).

EDIT: Now, looking for arguments against your points, I actually found where I was wrong in my assumptions, so thank you for that. The whole high-value/low-value armor argument doesn't work for negative values exactly like it does for positive armor values. Second page of google sheets table now has more info on the matter.

The basic idea remains roughly the same, but negative armor isn't quite as effective as I assumed. For all positive armor values cutting into high-value armor is still preferable, as seen in the example above, but the maximum effectiveness is achieved when reducing armor to zero, at least in Hits-to-kill perspective. Blog posts was slightly changed to reflect on that. Again, thank you for challenging my argument, since it helps with finding actual answers.

What you've summarised in that comment Kawaii would be better to put in the blog than the 75% vs 16% increase point you put down originally as, as Sanaitarium points, those numbers are quite meaningless. The 2.21% times vs 1.65 times makes the point in a meaningful way.

I think the other thing you need to address is why there are better alternatives to dealing with these high armour heroes. Getting A desolator vs a 42 armour hero isn't as good an investment as increasing the time you can disable them or burst them with magic damage for example.

I like maths in the DotA mechanics hahaha

Is not knowing all of this why I'm not divine

work as intended OSFrog

Cool, actually this explains why the previous DR become too OP

the maximum effectiveness is achieved when reducing armor to zero

How to reach divine :
Study for End-term exam XXX
Study Dota unique mechanics ✓✓✓

Me and the boys thinking it's time to spam ET and Drow to get free mmr from that 50++ armor Morph and TB

really? you wrote a whole article just to tell people that you found out that Natural Order and Marksmanship stack?

Antoha was here.

Very interesting post!

maximum effectiveness xd

Ember Spirit + KotL allows for some crazy double-sleight plays. Massive damage if you build it right.

@KawaiiSocks
This post promotes the wrong way to think about armor.

1% additional damage reduction when you have 98% reduction means you have two times as much EHP (which is what you should care about). 1% when you have 0% means 1.01 times as much EHP.

It is inefficient to get a lot of armor, but not because the returns are diminishing. It's ineffective because having 10000 physical EHP and 1000 magical EHP means you'll still probably going to die pretty fast (to magic).

@KawaiiSocks
I love how you only focused on writing about armor without any consideration for health points... Even if target has so much armor that you can't possibly reduce it through items it doesn't mean that difference will be noticeable "armor reduction effects are not very effective"... Simple math says that when dmg reduction from armor increases according to this function
Damage reduction = 0.052 × armor/(0.9 + 0.048 × armor)

time needed for carry to kill target(assuming he has constant DPS) increases LINEARLY. for example 2 targets with same hp. harder has whooping 50 armor. What does it mean? it means that we will have to pound it for 3 TIMES longer(has 66,(6)% physical dmg reduction).

Yes. it is still very simplified. but you cant just say that it won't be much difference. Difference in time for when we have -20 reduction and target has 40 armor is 28%. Is it much? well it depends. On other sources of dmg, skills etc. Sometimes the difference is critical... especially if target can heal itself over time(by regen/spells)...

Thanks for this information.

bro your math is off do you even relative percentage delete this article and go study up

moto brigao