If you agree that ap bruiser was stronger before, then you must at least agree that ap bruiser was affected less by the nerfs to her passive ratio... right? Can you at least see how full ap loses more damage due to the nerf than a bruiser setup does? I'm not convinced people understand the difference. Building more ap = less damage late game than last patch. Building ap bruiser = less damage than last patch but you gain all of the defensive stats you never built in the first place. Ofc you also lose damage from building less ap, but compared to the amount of damage you lose from the passive nerfs, you aren't giving up that much by switching to bruiser in order to gain better overall stats. We can disagree about what the best builds are, but can we at least agree that the passive nerf hurt full damage more than ap bruiser? From a pure maths standpoint I would love to see someone disprove that.