Sett punishes tanks 

This. It doesn’t make sense to think about armor in terms of percentage reduced but rather effective hp gained.

which does mean that the relative impact of the first 100 armor is higher. +100% total effective hp, vs +50% for going from 100 to 200 armor

@@abcdefgh5808 yes but just put math aside and think in this term , thee longer the game goes the more ad dmg u receive so even if u get less dmg reduction from armore that dmg reduction reduces more ad dmg anyway

@@abcdefgh5808 sure, but you always get the same ehp for your gold. so to buy armor doesnt become less gold efficient

@@robertoce9811 if you accept that then you also have to accept that other stats like flat health and AD among others have relatively diminishing effects. a ruby crystal at 1000 health is a 15% increase in health, at 2000 it's only 7.5% an argument for the linearity of armor which i have found somewhat convincing in the past is the fact that percentage damage reduction on its own is clearly more relatively effective whenever you gain more of it. going from 0 to 10% damage reduction against a 100 damage ability reduces it to 90, which is actually just a change of 10%, but when you go from 10% to 20%, it goes from 90 to 80, which is an 11.11% reduction. just like old CDR, if armor gave the same amount of damage reduction per point, it'd have to have a cap, or give so little reduction per point (or per gold spent) that it effectively had a cap, else you'd have champions running around with 100% damage reduction.