**Talk:**Rip

## Back to page

*104,156*pages on

this wiki

## Rip Scaling with Attack Edit

The current version of the article says "Rank 6: Damage = Attack Power * 0,24 + 940" is how to determine how rip scales with attack. I don't know how to read the "0,24" part. Could someone make this a bit more clear in the main article, or here?

- I think this was my mistake, it should be "Rank 6: Damage = Attack Power * 0.24 + 940". The "," ist the german way to separat decimal numbers, like maybe your ".". Pynok 11:23, 4 January 2007 (EST)

## Base values wrong? Edit

It has come to my attention via a little testing I was doing for my cat dps spreadsheet that the base damage values for rip in the tooltip are totally incorrect. My own testing has revealed the numbers for rank 7 to be approx. (plus or minus 5 damage)

CPs | Base Damage |

1 | 426 |

2 | 707 |

3 | 989 |

4 | 1271 |

5 | 1553 |

I used several data points for each # of combo points, and did a linear regression, and the AP scaling matches perfectly with what's written on the page, however the base values did not, so I have provided them here in case they are useful. --Tejing 05:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

- Are you accounting for +30% when mangle is up, and +10% from 5/5 Naturalist? The listed base for 5pt is 102 + 198*5 = 1092. 1092 * 1.3 * 1.1 = 1561.56, which is much closer to your value. Taleden 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

- Yes, I am accounting for these effects. There has been some discussion of this discrepancy on the elitist jerks forums I believe, though I can't remember which thread it's in off the top of my head. Some people theorized that the wow server was incorrectly applying these effects twice to the base damage and only once to the AP contribution, but all the data I've seen has consistently averaged within a couple of damage points of my average above, which is 8.5 points off of what it would be if that theory were correct... so it's back to the old "the tooltip is just plain wrong" theory :-) --Tejing 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

- I would like to concur with Tejing - the numbers I'm seeing in practice are very close to the values he gives (I'd change 426 to 425 though. to match the progression ;). Flowers 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

## Updated for 3.0 Edit

I only just updated the entire page for patch 3.0, and cleaned it up a bit as well. Brachamul 27 October 2008.