PSA: A Bleed is not Damage Reduction

Eedat·Jun 25, 2017·65 votes·2,765 views

I've seen this tossed around a lot that has "30% damage reduction". The point of this thread isn't to argue if DD is too strong or not. The point is to correct this misconception.

offers 0% damage reduction. You still take 100% damage. 70% upfront, 30% as a bleed, but still 100% total.

Now you could argue "but they can sustain through the bleed" which is a valid point, but its not guaranteed and relies on other factors. If it were in fact 30% damage reduction, there wouldn't be that bleed damage to sustain through to begin with. The two are not one in the same.

So please, stop confusing substituting "damage reduction" for the bleed effect on . Its inaccurate and misleading.

96 Comments

fuffychanJun 25, 201716 votes

I saw a guy the other day said that ADCs have "literally 50% damage reduction".

GULAG 4 UJun 25, 20171 votes

Some people don't know the definition of that word. In fact, most people don't.

SlythionJun 25, 201714 votes

To be fair, those "other factors" are neither uncommon nor difficult to overcome. If you're in a fight, especially as an adc, you are more than likely to be autoing and dishing damage in return. With the easy access to lifesteal in adc's, especially now, calling it "damage reduction" is accurate for all intents and purposes.

That bleed damage has almost no different outcome from a damage reduction in 95% of cases, which is why this is a "detail" argument that I don't very find important to correct others on.

Edit: Another point that Paroe raised was that not only is the bleed largely irrelevant due to the ease of lifesteal in the class that's abusing the item, but also the abundant amounts of shields and heals for that class also leave the bleed largely irrelevant and no different to a reduction

EedatJun 25, 20177 votes

It completely depends. Maybe the ADC is locked down and cant attack. Maybe they only have an opportunity to hit a heavily armored tank 2-3 times. Maybe they heal through the whole thing.

The point is that if it was "damage reduction", those other variables wouldn't exist and they just wouldnt take that damage ever. Period.

There is also a huge difference in the sustain factor. Let me give you two examples

An ADC has 1800 HP. They take 1000 damage. 700 of that damage is upfront, 300 is the bleed. They sustain 300 through the bleed. They are now at 1100 HP

NOW if the 30% was actual damage reduction it would look a bit different. The same 1800 HP ADC takes 1000 damage. 300 of that is mitigated with 30% damage reduction. They sustain that same 300 HP. They are now at 1400 HP in the same exact scenario

item 3812 =/= Damage Reduction

Straight up.

PennsJun 25, 20178 votes

The thing is.. your argument is "it isnt damage reduction" which everyone agrees with. But our argument is "it basically feels like damage reduction because they get life steal/heals and shields for days". Plus it delays burst so its at least some damage reduction because health pots/hp regen.

EedatJun 25, 20176 votes

Plus it delays burst so its at least some damage reduction because health pots/hp regen.

Its not. I literally just did the math that proves this wrong

ParoeJun 25, 20179 votes

A bleed is effective damage reduction if you can heal off the bleed. If a draven hits you with a 1000 damage AA and you have 12% from knights vow 12% from PD 30% from DD You will drop that 1000 to 760 (24%) and then take a 222 bleed, thus reducing his alpha damage to 538.

IF you heal off the bleed, it is an effective 30% damage reduction. However UNLIKE burst damage, DoTs are effected by resistances and HP/5. If you have a dot that deals 100 true damage over 5 seconds and have 47HP/5, you just reduced that 100 to 53.

Further with all the heals and shields available its VERY easy for that bleed to become irrelevant, also making it 30% effective damage reduction.

EedatJun 25, 20175 votes

No its not. Thats 100% completely wrong. I'm just going to copy this again.

There is also a huge difference in the sustain factor. Let me give you two examples

An ADC has 1800 HP. They take 1000 damage. 700 of that damage is upfront, 300 is the bleed. They sustain 300 through the bleed. They are now at 1100 HP

NOW if the 30% was actual damage reduction it would look a bit different. The same 1800 HP ADC takes 1000 damage. 300 of that is mitigated with 30% damage reduction. They sustain that same 300 HP. They are now at 1400 HP in the same exact scenario

=/= Damage Reduction

Straight up.

MorticianjohnJun 25, 20177 votes

So what you're saying is that no damage was reduced however if I am at 1000 HP and get hit for 1000 by a veigar ult and I don't die from it then what reduced the damage if it wasn't death's dance? Even if I die in 2 seconds there is still temporary damage reduction. I am not sure what else you would call it.

Tobias BracknerJun 25, 20176 votes

IT'S NOT TEMPORARY DAMAGE REDUCTION

YOU CALL IT BLEED

NO DAMAGE IS REDUCED

The DeckownerJun 25, 20177 votes

it is damage reduction if you have lifesteal/heal/shield.

SlythionJun 25, 201727 votes

he specifically answered that argument in the last paragraph

rework trundleJun 25, 20175 votes

The item comes with LS (on physical damage spells as well), which makes the bleed easy to sustain. OP, this is why most of us say it's damage reduction. It's not, but basically is.

WildstyleJun 25, 20179 votes

How is it "basically" damage reduction? Saying that is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Plenty of times I've killed my target and then died to bleed with nothing to lifesteal on... Why? Because its not damage reduction.

EedatJun 25, 201715 votes

I'm just going to copy and paste this from another comment I just made.

There is also a huge difference in the sustain factor. Let me give you two examples

An ADC has 1800 HP. They take 1000 damage. 700 of that damage is upfront, 300 is the bleed. They sustain 300 through the bleed. They are now at 1100 HP

NOW if the 30% was actual damage reduction it would look a bit different. The same 1800 HP ADC takes 1000 damage. 300 of that is mitigated with 30% damage reduction. They sustain that same 300 HP. They are now at 1400 HP in the same exact scenario

=/= Damage Reduction

Straight up.

rework trundleJun 25, 20173 votes

You're right. That's why I said it's not damage reduction. But if the same adc took the same damage without DD's passive, they would be at 800 HP, while with the DD's passive, they would be at 1100HP (+ the DoT which didn't come into factor yet). That extra 300 HP can help them land a few more AA's, while without it, they would be already dead. Even if the damage catches up, the upfront damage is heavily reduced (30% is a lot!). That extra 3 seconds where you're still not dead can make a difference, and that's why people consider it as damage reduction.

Take for example Veigar, who has a really high burst. After he blew his abilities on you, he has nothing for at least 2 seconds. That is usually enough to sustain through the DoT. In the case 1 where the upfront damage isn't reduced, you're already dead. In the case 2 where the upfront damage is reduced, you're not YET dead. If you die, whatever. If you don't, this is where people start considering DD is a "damage reduction".

EedatJun 25, 20178 votes

But if the same adc took the same damage without DD's passive, they would be at 800 HP

No thats still incorrect. Lets look at this mathematically. I'll start out with my first scenario.

An ADC has 1800 HP. They take 1000 damage. 700 of that damage is upfront, 300 is the bleed. They sustain 300 through the bleed. They are now at 1100 HP

1800 - 700 upfront - 300 bleed + 300 sustain = 1100 HP

Now lets look at the same scenario without the bleed

1800 - 1000 damage + 300 sustain = 1100 HP

rework trundleJun 25, 20172 votes

Look. I know it's not damage reduction. But on the first second you take all this damage, in a scenario where the burst would instakill you, you're not STILL dead with DD. You will eventually die over 3 seconds IF you don't sustain.

Please, don't quote things out of context, take the full picture instead. Btw I understood your example. Did you understand mine?

EedatJun 25, 201710 votes

No, you said:

It's not, but basically is.

Its not "basically" damage reduction. It straight up isnt. I even did the math to prove it.

The gray area you refer to were it delays fatal damage is still NOT reducing the damage. The ADC will still die if they cant somehow sustain the damage (I.E. CCed, no target, can't sustain enough, etc). This is not how actual damage reduction would function at all in the same scenario.

They are not the same thing at all.

MorticianjohnJun 25, 20173 votes

It does reduce the incoming damage (even if only temporarily) so I am not sure what else you would call it. Seems like the whole thread is just semantics.

EedatJun 25, 201713 votes

How about its own separate mechanic that isnt damage reduction

macromiteJun 25, 20175 votes

Think about this.

You have 1000 hp and 5 hp5 regen.

If you take 1000 damage without the bleed in under a second, you die.

If you take 1000 Damage with the bleed in the same time, you live with 3 hp.

Does this not consitute being called damage reduction. because the damage being turned into a dot changes your time to kill by a bit, and can increase the amount of damage needed to kill you by a lot.

It is in all ways damage reduction but in name.

TeCoolMageJun 25, 20171 votes

:^) it reduces your net damage taken by a flat amount equal to your hp regen like fizz and amumu's auto attack reducing passives :^)

So it's actually like 4 damage reduction :^) clearly underpowered pls buff

SalronJun 25, 20177 votes

It's damage reduction relative to instant burst

An assassin hits a carry for 2k dmg DD makes it so the carry takes 1.4k instead at that very instant, which is 30% damage reduction at that instant

Because of this, the carry doesnt get 1 shot, and lives long enough to heal through the bleed and ends up surviving as a result, so yes, it is 30% damage reduction based on how you think about it

five oh tree Jun 25, 20177 votes

30% damage reductioj based on how you think about it

I didn't realize definitions of words/phrases were subjective lol. You can say it effectively acts as damage reduction if you also put in that the item does not effectively give you any sustain, since you're counting the sustain as part of the damage reduction.

It's not about, "how you look at it."

PB4UAMEJun 25, 20173 votes

The item gives physical damage vamp, which while one step below omnivamp, is still significantly better than lifesteal. The item does effectively give you 'any' sustain.

five oh tree Jun 25, 20175 votes

Did you... not read anything I read?

Please read my last post over again.

You're allowed to say it effectively acts as damage reduction as long as you include in the same statement that it does not effectively give sustain BECAUSE YOU'RE INCLUDING THAT IN YOUR CALCULATIONS OF DAMAGE REDUCTION.

You heal for 15%, and you bleed for double that, so to even stay even in health bar, you have to do TWICE AS MUCH physical damage as you're receiving.

So no, it doesn't effectively give any sustain if you're claiming it offers damage reduction.

Read my fucking posts.

MorticianjohnJun 25, 20174 votes

It is temporary damage reduction even if there are no sheilds, heals etc... death's dance will reduce the incoming damage for a couple of seconds. This is temporary damage reduction in any game.

PB4UAMEJun 25, 20174 votes

You're creating a false dichotomy. It is both, when there is no damage being taken, or if it can outsustain the bleed for the damage taken than you still have sustain. If you are shielded such that the damage tick is ticking off the shield, you are sustaining. If you deal damage such that 15% of your physical damage is more than 15% of the damage you've taken recently, congrats, you still have sustain, plus whatever sustain you have from Doran's, runes, masteries, and other lifesteal items.

Don't make things into false binary propositions. The world is not black nor white but a multifarious blob of different shades of grey. The least you could do is not truncate your logic into an illogical mess. DD does not provide sustain or damage reduction. It provides passive damage off-set coupled with very powerful, extremely easy to use sustain, which when one is actively taking damage, function in tandem as a form of damage mitigation. Based on a whole host of outside factors, they can either sustain beyond the damage mitigation, or have it function as temporary partial damage reduction in instances wherein they take more damage from the bleed than they can lifesteal. . .

But this instance only can occur when the ADC is being repeatedly bursted for huge percentages of their max health, or was recently bursted to what would have been a 100-0 without the item, and then were hard CCed so they couldn't attack; or they must have fucked up their positioning to ever be in a case where it might not offer damage reduction and sustain. That said, if you didn't have DD you would die outright in either scenario and much faster, I might add, so you will get very little if any sympathy from me in those instances as bar none the safest and most powerful class in League of Legends with the second longest range outside of Artillery Mages, the best pushing power, best objective damage, best teamfight damage, best sustained damage, and lowest resource cost + guaranteed point and click damage, and yet you weren't able to use that plus a metric fuckton of free defensive stats, and an over abundance of other lifesteal, plus sustain from your team now that everyone and their mother builds support and defensive items just to stack on their ADC on top of all the stupid shit like PD, DD, and new GA, not to mention older shit like Maw, BT, BotRK and MS which all just further compounds the sheer, ludicrous value that DD and its damage delay + unique sustain mechanic provide.

EDIT: still don't think it provides damage reduction? Consider this:

For a champion with DD to get bursted 100-0 it would take 142.9% damage instead of 100% (142.9 X 0.7 = 100.03) The enemy must now either waste an additional 43% of the damage it would take to kill you, to overkill the target or they allow that target, who would otherwise already be dead, the time to fight back with damage/CC for at least 3 additional seconds that they wouldn't otherwise have.

You probably aren't a tank player, but to those of us who are, this alone is easily recognizable as a huge amount of damage reduction from the other team, if for no other reason than that they must burn 43% more damage on the highest priorty target on your team, who now also has an additional form of damage mitigation to make it take them even longer to die, to allow your team and your support more time to get their CC/exhausts/heals/shields on the ADC, so now they need even fucking more burst to kill a target they've already had to almost 50% overkill and oh, hey wait? You know what's happening this entire time? The rest of your team is taking so much less damage as they are spending 3+ seconds still trying to take out a priority target who would otherwise already be dead two times over by that point, because of DD damage delay.

Alice n ChainzJun 25, 20171 votes

So long as in this statement:

DD does not provide sustain or damage reduction. It provides passive damage off-set coupled with very powerful, extremely easy to use sustain, which when one is actively taking damage, function in tandem as a form of damage mitigation.

You meant something like, "DD does not provide 'just' sustain or damage reduction" or if you meant it doesn't give just one or the other, than I agree with everything you posted.

But really, DD is both sustain AND damage reduction.

Also, at the end here, did you mean that the other team was spending 3+ seconds trying to kill your ADC, so they aren't damaging your team as much? I thought that's what you were getting at, but its a bit unclear.

The rest of your team is taking so much less damage as they are spending 3+ seconds still trying to take out a priority target who would otherwise already be dead two times over by that point, because of DD damage delay.

five oh tree Jun 25, 20171 votes

Okay, so you can hit me with walls of superfluous text and probably have some great points there, but it does not give straight damage reduction. You can say anything you want, but it is not coded as damage reduction, so you cannot use that term for it. I don't understand why you wrote so much when it doesn't change the fact you still take 100% of all incoming damage, just some with a delay. That was my point.

I'm not arguing over if it's strong or weak (it's obviously strong), I'm merely saying the term 'damage reduction' should not be thrown around with this item as a buzzword. It effectively reduces damage received, but you still end up taking all of it.

Damage delay =/= damage reduction was my point.

Oh, also, you're reading way too deeply into my last reply if you think I was forming a false dichotomy. I was only stating the fact that you have to deal a certain amount of damage to feel like you're lifestealing in a duel. It will just feel like you're dying slower because of the constant bleed ticks counteracting your constant physical damage. With that being said, you would still need to deal 2x the physical damage to the person you're dueling to feel like you have 30% damage reduction.

TL;DR: You're arguing over points I didn't make or disagree with.

PB4UAMEJun 25, 20171 votes

Read the edited portion again, it was added before your comment.

For a champion with DD to get bursted 100-0 it would take 142.9% damage instead of 100% (142.9 X 0.7 = 100.03) The enemy must now either waste an additional 43% of the damage it would take to kill you, to overkill the target or they allow that target, who would otherwise already be dead, the time to fight back with damage/CC for at least 3 additional seconds that they wouldn't otherwise have.

You probably aren't a tank player, but to those of us who are, this alone is easily recognizable as a huge amount of damage reduction from the other team, if for no other reason than that they must burn 43% more damage on the highest priorty target on your team, who now also has an additional form of damage mitigation to make it take them even longer to die, to allow your team and your support more time to get their CC/exhausts/heals/shields on the ADC, so now they need even fucking more burst to kill a target they've already had to almost 50% overkill and oh, hey wait? You know what's happening this entire time? The rest of your team is taking so much less damage as they are spending 3+ seconds still trying to take out a priority target who would otherwise already be dead two times over by that point, because of DD damage delay.

Just from it being a damage delay, damage reduction to that player and their team both occur in the larger context of League of Legends. You cannot omit all these factors and the real impact they have on gameplay just because you wish to equivocate people talking about the concept of "damage reduction" as the stat "% damage reduction" despite the fact that these are two different things.

DD's 30% damage taken as a bleed over 3 seconds is not 30% damage reduction. But it is still a form of damage reduction. Can you see the distinction?

five oh tree Jun 26, 20171 votes

Fair enough, Fair enough. I suppose I was looking at it in a vacuum. thank you for putting time into your replies.

RiviniJun 25, 20177 votes

Natural health regeneration means it will always offer damage reduction, even if it's 1%.

Milodic MellodiJun 25, 20176 votes

Considering the item itself already gives a form of Life Steal (plus 80 AD, which further increases the amount gained back), it might as well be treated as Damage Reduction. Reducing the amount of damage taken in a single blow is still damage reduction, even if you eventually take the whole amount of damage. 300 instant damage, or 100 damage over 3 seconds? If there is nothing to let me take advantage of the damage reduction, then it doesn't change the damage I take and therefore is sort of useless. However, if someone applies a heal or shield to me, or I'm able to attack to regain life back, then that "damage reduction" makes it all worth it.

Champion SkinJun 25, 20173 votes

If there is nothing to let me take advantage of the damage reduction, then it doesn't change the damage I take and therefore is sort of useless.

No it isn't useless even then.... because it gives the champion 3 seconds to fight back and deal as much damage as possible to the enemy before dying (if they take 100% damage and don't heal/shield)

And for that champion to get bursted 100-0 it would take 142.9% damage instead of 100% (142.9 X 0.7 = 100.03)

So the enemy is either forced to "waste" damage to overkill the target or allow the target time to fight back with damage/CC

Milodic MellodiJun 25, 20171 votes

If there is nothing to let me take advantage. That means if I'm incapable of counterattacking. Which to be honest is a pretty often occurrence in league, especially if you're Melee.

ParoeJun 25, 20176 votes

@thread

They take 1000 damage. That damage is reduced by 300 (30%) and turned into a bleed over 3 seconds.

That 1000 is now 700. If, in that three seconds, they heal, are shielded, or are healed that means the damage is _mitigated. _

You seem to be under this strange impression that the world is black and white, and that there are no additional factors at play when we say EFFECTIVE DAMAGE REDUCTION. Shields and heals are EXTREMELY POWERFUL against DAMAGE OVER TIME. If a % of alpha is converted into a DoT and then mitigated, AND can be done regularly, you would call it EFFECTIVE DAMAGE REDUCTION. item 3031 item 3046 item 3508 item 3812 item 3072 item 3006 on . Tryndamere At level 18 he has 2292 health and 116 AD. Adding up the numbers with those items he has; 461AD with 100% crit and 2.0ASP with ASP runes along with 15% phys to health and 20% lifesteal. So lets say hes in a prime position; BTs shield gives him an additional 350 health in the form of a shield. and the jungler has him vowed and is within range.

Tryndamere gets bursted by the 1000AP syndra scripting who does all this in about a second. Q: 980 W: 930 E: 750 R: 2660 4940 burst damage. Reduce that by 24%. 3754. Reduced by 30%. 2628+1126 as bleed. Tryndamere has 35% lifesteal. He heals for 404 per auto. In order to completely mitigate the damage, he needs to heal at least 376 damage per second. He attacks twice per second. In two and a half seconds he will have OUT HEALED the total bleed, COMPLETELY MITIGATING IT thus rendering the bled damage reduced from the alpha burst.

And do you know why he was able to live with math? Because deaths dance is effective damage reduction IF you can heal it because IT DELAYS BURST.
IF deaths dance did NOT delay burst it would be another healing item. But, because it DOES delay burst, if you HEAL THROUGH THE DELAY it makes the item EFFECTIVE DAMAGE REDUCTION.

EedatJun 25, 20177 votes

If, in that three seconds, they heal, are shielded, or are healed that means the damage is mitigated.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It's NOT mitigated..

Lets take a look at this mathematically with a few examples. Lets start with the scenario:

An 1800 HP ADC takes what would be 1000 damage. Over the next 4 seconds, they sustain 300 HP back via lifesteal.

1: If it was ACTUALLY 30% damage reduction the math would look like this.

1800 HP - 700 damage (1000 damage - 300 mitigated damage) + 300 HP sustain = 1400 HP

2: The 30% bleed would look like this.

1800 HP - 700 upfront - 300 bleed + 300 sustain = 1100 HP

3: No DD, all damage upfront, lifesteal from another source.

1800 HP - 1000 damage + 300 sustain = 1100 HP

It does not function the same as damage reduction

It does NOT mitigate damage PERIOD. It is not "effectively" damage reduction. It is not "basically" damage reduction. It is not "the same as" damage reduction.

It is its own separate mechanic that functions completely differently than damage reduction

ParoeJun 25, 20177 votes

{quoted}

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It's NOT mitigated..

Lets take a look at this mathematically with a few examples. Lets start with the scenario:

An 1800 HP ADC takes what would be 1000 damage. Over the next 4 seconds, they sustain 300 HP back via lifesteal.

1: If it was ACTUALLY 30% damage reduction the math would look like this.

1800 HP - 700 damage (1000 damage - 300 mitigated damage) + 300 HP sustain = 1400 HP

2: The 30% bleed would look like this.

1800 HP - 700 upfront - 300 bleed + 300 sustain = 1100 HP

3: No DD, all damage upfront, lifesteal from another source.

1800 HP - 1000 damage + 300 sustain = 1100 HP

It does not function the same as damage reduction

It does NOT mitigate damage PERIOD. It is not "effectively" damage reduction. It is not "basically" damage reduction. It is not "the same as" damage reduction.

It is its own separate mechanic that functions completely differently than damage reduction

If a portion of the alpha damage is modified and then removed, it is MITIGATED. A shield is a form of mitigation. An overheal is a form of mitigation. Damage conversion can be a form of mitigation.

IF - and i say this ONLY IF - the bleed damage is HEALED OR SHIELDED, then the ALPHA BURST HAS BEEN MITIGATED. IN a SNOWBALL SCENARIO deaths dance CAN BE EFFECTIVE DAMAGE REDUCTION if your HEALING PER SECOND IS GREATER THAN 1/3rd OF THE DAMAGE CONVERTED TO A BLEED. Youre purposefully ignoring the HEALING ASPECT of the bleed and WHY THE BLEED IS SO STRONG DEFENSIVELY.

Lets put it this way. A man gets his arm chopped off. The chopped off arm is then put into ice and the stub is similarly chilled. IF the man can reach a skilled surgeon in time the nerves and blood vessels, chilled by the cold, can be reattached rendering most of the possible damage MITIGATED. IF the man does not reach a skilled surgeon in time the nerves and blood vessels will die, inflicting him with the MOST POSSIBLE DAMAGE. In this case, the ice is acting as damage reduction until the man can be healed.

Listen guy, the world isnt black and white. Yes the damage is a bleed and with no healing it DOES equal 100% damage. But the purpose of the item isnt SOLELY to delay burst. The purpose of the item is to REDUCE BURST DAMAGE so that IT CAN BE MITIGATED VIA HEALING. Thats the intention of the item. It is NOT wrong to say the item is a damage reduction item, because in the situations it was MEANT to be used it IS EFFECTIVE DAMAGE REDUCTION.

If someone is saying the item is damage reduction like PD and KV is, then theyre wrong. But in a situation where the bleed CAN BE HEALED AS INTENDED then they are NOT WRONG in saying that its damage reduction.

Champion SkinJun 25, 20173 votes

Listen guy, the world isnt black and white. Yes the damage is a bleed and with no healing it DOES equal 100% damage.

Actually not quite as all champions have some HP regen so the enemy would need to deal slightly more than 100% damage for the bleed to kill the champion

And allowing the champion more time to fight back and deal damage to the enemy is valuable Well either that or the enemy is forced to deal 142.9% instead of 100% damage to burst the champion (142.9% X 0.7 = 100.03%)

ParoeJun 25, 20173 votes

[{quoted}](name=Champion Skin,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Eivbel30,comment-id=000d000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-25T08:55:49.919+0000)

Actually not quite as all champions have some HP regen so the enemy would need to deal slightly more than 100% damage for the bleed to kill the champion

And allowing the champion more time to fight back and deal damage to the enemy is valuable Well either that or the enemy is forced to deal 142.9% instead of 100% damage to burst the champion (142.9% X 0.7 = 100.03%)

Yes the damage is a bleed and with_ no healing_ it DOES equal 100% damage. HP regen counts as healing. o-o'

Zone of EndlessJun 25, 20174 votes

{quoted}

I've seen this tossed around a lot that has "30% damage reduction". The point of this thread isn't to argue if DD is too strong or not. The point is to correct this misconception.

offers 0% damage reduction. You still take 100% damage. 70% upfront, 30% as a bleed, but still 100% total.

Now you could argue "but they can sustain through the bleed" which is a valid point, but its not guaranteed and relies on other factors. If it were in fact 30% damage reduction, there wouldn't be that bleed damage to sustain through to begin with. The two are not one in the same.

So please, stop confusing substituting "damage reduction" for the bleed effect on . Its inaccurate and misleading.

it should be called damage mitigation.

You're taking portion of a burst damage into a bleed damage so you take the same damage over time but less upfront damage allowing you to survive longer.

RevaliJun 25, 20173 votes

I personally think the true damage should be increased to about 40% so you lose more than you gain if you're not actively fighting. it is all **death's dance ** for a reason, is it not?

Sexy Jack RabbitJun 26, 20172 votes

I don't really get where people get the idea to argue here this. But it reminds me a lot like the Kindred Situation. There is 2 of them so it's 'They' not 'She' but for all purposes people say She. It's a bleed, so it's not damage reduction, but for all intents and purposes in the current meta it's basically just viewed as damage reduction on an ADC v0v

I suppose it's one of those situations of Opinion vs. Fact and Context vs Literal meaning.

ParoeJun 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I don't really get where people get the idea to argue here this. But it reminds me a lot like the Kindred Situation. There is 2 of them so it's 'They' not 'She' but for all purposes people say She. It's a bleed, so it's not damage reduction, but for all intents and purposes in the current meta it's basically just viewed as damage reduction on an ADC v0v

I suppose it's one of those situations of Opinion vs. Fact and Context vs Literal meaning.

Its damage reduction when combined with sustain. Thats why we call it as such. With how many shields and heals there are its VERY easy to perpetually sustain that bleed, which makes it effective damage reduction. Also kindred is lamb and wolf- but when we refer to kindred we actually mean lamb because shes the champion.

This thread is the OP not understanding that things arent black and white; things are a strange muddled grey where things are fluid and change every couple of months.

Sexy Jack RabbitJun 27, 20171 votes

Kindred is the champion. Wolf and Lamb are characters. Rioters have said this on multiple different occasions v0v

It's 'Never one without the other'. Not 'One with the other'.

SquashCannonJun 26, 20172 votes

People incorrectly refer to it as such because on top of the sustain, which they are allowed to get more out of since they cant be bursted, damage is basically being reduced quite heavily.

Delayed damage + sustain = actual damage "reduction" as a fight goes on; their health bar isn't moving in the direction it ought to be when they're taking hits as squishies

thoniobisJun 25, 20171 votes

You also forgot to mention damadges are dealt as true damadges so in fact you take more damadges because of Death Dance (usualy you have at least 40% damadge reduction with armor and 30% with magic resist).

Sozan5Jun 25, 20175 votes

You misunderstood how it works - though, I don't blame you, it's worded poorly.

It deals the damage as true damage - but it stores the damage after the armor/mr reduction anyway.

So, for example, let's say you have 100 armor and took 1 000 physical damage. The damage is then reduced to 500 (due to armor) and 30% of that is stored in death's dance. So, you end up taking that 150 damage over time as true damage (it's like this only so it's not reduced by armor twice).