[GAMEPLAY] Champion Base AD increase by level numbers in-game are not as advertised for champ. Bug?
I have noticed that inside the game, the Base AD of the champions (I've checked in Practice Tool) do not match what the advertised statisctics are for the champion. If this Base AD per level is calculated incorrectly, all other damage calculations based from that number will also be wrong.
As an analyst/programmer for decades, I know many will immediately think "rounding problems". So, I will take a coule of champions which deal with whole numbers as examples. Jhin: Base AD 53 + 4 per level. That means Lv 1 = 53 and Lv18 = 121. That is 121 = 53 + 68 (17*4) That implies each level increases by 4 AD. However, that is not what we see in game. Displayed Lvl 1 and Lvl 18 numbers are correct, but all others in between are incorrect. I cannot format a table or use Tabs in here, but the following numbers per line are: Level, What Should Be, Actual AD in Game, Error 1 53 53 0 2 57 56 1 3 61 59 2 4 65 62 3 5 69 65 4 6 73 69 4 7 77 72 5 8 81 76 5 9 85 80 5 10 89 84 5 11 93 88 5 12 97 92 5 13 101 97 4 14 105 101 4 15 109 106 3 16 113 111 2 17 117 116 1 18 121 121 0
As you can see, the increments are sometimes 3, sometimes 4, sometimes 5. The error per level varies from 1 to 5 in levels 7 to 12. It seems to me there are formula errors in the game client which will affect the calculated Base AD and all damage calculations that use that number. At the very least, if the number in the calculations is correct there would be a display problem. As an additional example, here are Miss Fortune's numbers which deal with whole numbers too. Miss Fortune: Base AD 46 + 1 per level. That means Lv 1 = 46 and Lv18 = 63. That is 63 = 46 + 17 (17*1) Level, What Should Be, Actual AD in Game, Error 1 46 46 0 2 47 47 0 3 48 47 1 4 49 48 1 5 50 49 1 6 51 50 1 7 52 51 1 8 53 52 1 9 54 53 1 10 55 54 1 11 56 55 1 12 57 56 1 13 58 57 1 14 59 58 1 15 60 59 1 16 61 60 1 17 62 62 0 18 63 63 0
So, if any Riot developer were to see this... What's going on here? If I am correct this needs to be fixed.
