oh god rick you are so wrong. I wasn't gonna say anything but your above comment pushed me over the edge. You are without a doubt one of the most useless posters I have seen in this section of the forums so far. Everything you post is either useless or completely wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about most of the time and you give downright horrible advice and feedback. When people talk about MM failures I assume you might be one of their references because you seem like the type who thinks he's so good but doesn't know anything at all really. Go to General Discussion please, stop leading people who are looking for actual help astray here.

w/e I'm regretting posting that lash-out against you already. Sorry. But just please think a bit before posting advice and whatnot. Not just this thread in particular, but anywhere, especially if you have marginal experience in the subject.

Crit chance is better, think about it this way, it increases the chance to deal double damage while crit damage increases the damage IF YOU CRIT, aka does nothing unless you crit.

I'm not repeating some random stuff that I've read somewhere; I'm repeating stuff I've WRITTEN before. Don't accuse me of being some random forum idiot who just spews back stuff they've read elsewhere. I've done the math, I've made the excel charts, I've tested mechanics in game, I know what I'm talking about. Look up some of the old crit chance vs. crit damage vs. armor pen threads; I helped contribute with many of those.

The OP (who hasn’t returned btw) asked a general question about crit chance and crit damage runes, presumably to maximize a champions physical dps, others brought up that armor pen runes (which you just agreed are better in almost every case) are better than both. I joined the discussion and expanded on why they are better, more specifically why they are better than crit damage runes. You didn’t understand (and still don’t?) that crit damage runes are actually less effective with IE’s passive, so I tried to explain why.

Crit damage runes may do more damage in that fringe case of extremely late game with 100% crit chance and enemies with zero/subzero armor, but how did you get to extreme late game with runes that do absolutely nothing until you get there? Even in this far-fetched case, I would still rather have armor pen or crit chance runes. Runes are much better at giving you an early game advantage than late game dominance. Remember, this game snowballs very quickly.


Wow, way to inflate your ego.
What math? I’ve done the math, I didn’t see you do any number crunching.
Protip, the way to win an argument is not by blatantly stating your inflated sense of superiority.


It appears though, that even after this heated debate, it appears that we both agree that armor pen runes are the runes of choice for physical dps characters (with a few exceptions)

The only place I think you were really incorrect was thinking that IE's passive does not affect the strength of crit damage runes, because it does.

I think its time to let this thread die, nothing has been brought up that hasn't been mentioned in other threads on this topic.

But the funny thing is, I CAN say having high attack damage makes stacking more attack damage less effective. You need a healthy balance of several different stats to maximize your dps. Once you have enough attack damage, it becomes more cost efficient to get some other dps stats such as crit or aspd than to continue stacking only more attack damage. There is a reason its usually not a good build to stack 5 BF swords or bloodthirsters (unless you're AD kat), you need at least a little of other dps stats to properly utilize your high attack damage.

For example, you have 100 AD and 0% crit chance, you can buy a BF sword and increase your damage by 50%, a huge boost.

Now lets say you have 300 AD and 0% crit chance, now buying that same BF sword will only increase your damage by 16.6%. Or, for half the cost, you could buy a cloak of agility to increase your expected damage by 18%.

In the first case it is more cost effective to buy a BF sword to increase your DPS, but in the second case it is better to pick up the cloak. This is the same logic I am using with crit damage runes and why the relative damage increase matters more.

You need to utilize the synergy between the different dps stats. As i stated in an earlier post, most dps stats scale linearly by themselves but multiplicatively with each other. If you increase your AD by 20% and get 20% crit, you actually increase your dps by 44%.

Obviously this is only applicable to auto attacks and doesn't necessarily apply to certain characters with abilities that scale off AD such as ez, ashe, pantheon, and pirate.

It's wierd, rickless. It's like you have all the pieces of the puzzle right, but you put them together wrong.

It *is* a question of wording, just like you say, and the maths you present and the way you present it are basically correct, but the way Cranium says it what matches with the actual game.

Yes, every BF Sword adds the same flat amount of damage to each swing as the one before, but every BF Sword is a worse purchase than the one before, because it makes every other relevant dps stat worth more, and diminishes it's own value comparatively.

In your posts that I've read, you start by implying that Cranium is wrong, and end by agreeing that this is the better way to think about it. Not "more correct", because it's just maths and both ways of presenting the numbers are valid, but "Maps better to the way things actually work in game".

This is true even back to the OP's original question. The *best* answer to "crit chance or crit damage?" is most certainly "Armour pen (Unless you're Trynd, in which case crit chance is good too)". Even though you're not answering the question as written, you're providing a much much more helpful and constructive response.