FB refreshing rip

[exkape]

ok, now I know I have read something like this before, but I can't seem to find the original comment about it, but I was wondering sub 25% (60% with 2t13) when BitW talent is able to be used, when you refresh your rip with a FB, will the rip's damage be determined by the FB combo points (e.g refresh 5cp rip with 1cp FB).
Also, if you are in the burn phase with everything proc'ing, potting as well, and you have rip up on the target, and you 5cp FB will that rip be refreshed with all your buffs at that time?

cheers

[Konungr]

Everything except for the Combo Points will be looked at when you refresh with Ferocious Bite. Meaning you can overwrite a 5pt Rip with a 1pt FB and it will still be a 5pt Rip, only difference will be your Attack Power/Agi/Mastery/Crit of the Rip.

[exkape]

sweet, cheers for that

[maxmaxima]

only difference will be your Attack Power/Agi/Mastery/Crit of the Rip.

what do you mean?

[Rarge]

only difference will be your Attack Power/Agi/Mastery/Crit of the Rip.

what do you mean?

Whenever you refresh Rip it takes a snapshot of your current stats. The rip will then deal damage based off those stats. So if you refresh rip whilst you have an agi pot active then the agi pot falls off half way through the Rip duration, the Rip will still be doing damage as if you had the agi pot active.

[maxmaxima]

Whenever you refresh Rip it takes a snapshot of your current stats. The rip will then deal damage based off those stats.

Yes I know that ^ mate.

What I want to understand is what he means by:

only difference will be your Attack Power/Agi/Mastery/Crit of the Rip

[Rarge]

What I want to understand is what he means by:

only difference will be your Attack Power/Agi/Mastery/Crit of the Rip

The new Rip will use your current AP/Agi/Mast/Crit at the time of the FB; every time you FB the new Rip takes a new snapshot of your stats, it doesn't use the snapshot that the previous Rip had taken, hence if your old Rip was applied with an agi pot active then you refresh it with a FB when your agi pot has fallen off the new Rip is using a different amount of agi to the old Rip.

[maxmaxima]

Crystal clear - much appreciated

[maxmaxima]

Not wanting to create a new thread as this next question is FB related.

Why does my FB sometimes produces zero or very little damage?
During Berserk I pool to 15 energy with 5cp so I can weave in more cp and more FB
Out of Berserk I pool to 60 ish energy with 5 cp.
Yet sometimes it actually produces zero damage. What am I doing wrong?

[Tinderhoof]

Do you have a log of when this is happening?
Is it actually 0 damage or just very little damage?
How are you viewing that the damage is low?

[maxmaxima]

I view low dmg or none at all.
Sadly I have no log for this.

[Qbear]

well the most important factor in finding out what's going on here is what do you consider low damage.

which is what I believe Tinder was more leaning toward.

[Toro]

Max, are you noticing this on a specific target, or in general?

[maxmaxima]

It's totally occasional. I can range from 50 to 130k crits, then suddenly with all conditions optimum I register nothing.
I'm wondering now if it could be lag.

[Rarge]

I have a couple logs where my FB is registered as "Blocked" and does about 5-14k damage, it only happens a few times though. It could be that?

Morchok http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-m4dyn ... 542&e=8941
Alizabal http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-a1lcf ... =177&e=368

[exkape]

stand behind the target and attacks wont get blocked/parried/dodged if u are exp capped i believe

[Toro]

@exkape: At least for Alizabel, she turns and puts a debuff on raid members, you basically can't help getting a block here and again, not often.

@max: Was looking around for videos with having 0 dmg (mostly FL and before), and came across a few cases. Referenced the fight in logs and I had no 0 dmg FBs, but it showed up on the screen as a giant 0; similarly, I remember seeing weird things in ICC where my FB would do around 240k dmg, or at least showed pu that way on the screen, but after reviewing it at that time, we attributed it to number crunching, as logs never listed that value.