DEV Community

Cover image for 100 AP Is a Crossover, Not a Build Guide: Make Patch Comparisons Explainable
Krishna Soni
Krishna Soni

Posted on Originally published at global.krizek.tech

100 AP Is a Crossover, Not a Build Guide: Make Patch Comparisons Explainable

#gamedev #gaming #python #testing

Close-up of a computer keyboard
Photo by Christian Wiediger on Unsplash. Illustrative hardware photo, not match footage.

Cassiopeia's Q in League of Legends patch 26.18 offers a neat lesson for anyone building a game-stats tool: one change can reduce base damage and increase scaling at the same time.

Here is a tiny, runnable Python comparison using the values in Riot's September 9, 2026 notes. It compares the old and new versions at the same ability rank and AP, before mitigation. It is a patch-specific illustration, not a claim about today's optimal build.

OLD_BASE = (75, 110, 145, 180, 215)
NEW_BASE = (65, 100, 135, 170, 205)

def q_comparison(rank, ap):
    if type(rank) is not int or not 1 <= rank <= 5:
        raise ValueError("rank must be an integer from 1 to 5")
    if type(ap) not in (int, float) or not 0 <= ap < float("inf"):
        raise ValueError("ap must be a finite non-negative number")
    old = OLD_BASE[rank - 1] + 0.65 * ap
    new = NEW_BASE[rank - 1] + 0.75 * ap
    return old, new, new - old

for ap in (0, 100, 200):
    print(ap, q_comparison(1, ap))

for rank in range(1, 6):
    assert abs(q_comparison(rank, 100)[2]) < 1e-9
    assert q_comparison(rank, 0)[2] == -10
    assert q_comparison(rank, 200)[2] == 10
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The useful result is the condition

At rank 1, the output is:

  • 0 AP: 75 old damage, 65 new damage; change −10.
  • 100 AP: 140 old damage, 140 new damage; change 0.
  • 200 AP: 205 old damage, 215 new damage; change +10.

The difference simplifies to -10 + 0.10 * AP. At 100 AP, the two versions cross. Because each listed base-damage value fell by 10, that crossover holds for all five Q ranks in this narrow comparison.

That is more useful than stamping the entire champion with a green “buff” or red “nerf” label. It tells a reader which input changes the answer.

It does not tell the reader to rush 100 AP. An arithmetic crossover is not an item-purchase recommendation. Gold, survivability, lane state and other abilities still matter.

Why a pro build needs its context

Riot's accompanying explanation explicitly distinguishes Cassiopeia's professional-play strength from her performance for average players. The stated intent is to reduce some laning power, especially where defensive purchases are valued more than raw AP, while returning scaling power.

That is a concrete example of the link between esports and everyday play. A champion can have the same name and ability buttons in both settings while the conditions around a build differ.

The interesting question is not “Should everyone copy the professional?” It is “What did that build need to accomplish in that match?”

For a tool that displays a pro player's build, I would put the patch, role, ability rank and relevant stats beside the recommendation. Match conditions are part of the explanation, not optional footnotes.

Keep calculation and interpretation separate

A small interface can show three distinct layers:

  1. Source values: the official patch and the old/new numbers.
  2. Calculated result: the same-rank, same-AP, pre-mitigation difference.
  3. Interpretation: a clearly labeled suggestion about where that difference may matter.

The code above only implements layer two. It ignores resistance, penetration, shields, damage modifiers, rounding behavior and the rest of Cassiopeia's kit. It does not estimate win rate or reproduce the game engine.

That boundary is a feature. A small calculator whose assumptions are visible is easier to check than a confident recommendation with hidden inputs.

Tests should protect the explanation

The assertions cover the crossover and both sides of it across all five ranks. In a production tool, also test invalid ranks, missing stats and the selected patch version. Keep the source URL and retrieval date with the imported values so a later update does not silently overwrite the comparison's meaning.

A passing arithmetic test still does not establish that a build is good. That needs separate evidence, with its own patch and player-population context.

Which context would you want visible first beside a pro build: patch, matchup, role or team composition?

Primary source: Riot's patch 26.18 notes.

Full KRI ZEK esports article.

Download Altered Brilliance: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tech.krizek.alteredbrilliance

Global website: https://global.krizek.tech

Pre-register for Arzenal Human Health: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tech.krizek.arzenal

Join The Power Of Gaming: https://discord.gg/sbYSPcCqJn

Top comments (0)