Black Mage Sanctuary - A Guide to DPS

i was merely curious if the old rotation actually did more DPS than 4.0 rotation . if you can pull it off 4.0 rotation is better according to these parses but of you can\\'t then do 3.x. I was under the impression that you should never do 4.0

imo i think this is good news. pump a little more DPS when stationary and only do marginally less dps when have to be mobile. it's not as punishing

this os great! like you said only a 177 increase in dps. have to do mechanics ? use 3.0 rotation. think you can turret for the entire astral fire phase? then use 4.0 . we're not punished as severely for having to move compared to before.

What stats are BLM focusing on now in 4.0 and why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeddyXIV

What stats are BLM focusing on now in 4.0 and why?

---

That's up for debate. With the revelation that the 3.0 rotation does more dps then the 4.0, one might say just skip spell speed altogether and go for Dh/Det. If you want to stick to hope in that they will fix the 4.0 rotation, then I say SpS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrasper

That's up for debate. With the revelation that the 3.0 rotation does more dps then the 4.0, one might say just skip spell speed altogether and go for Dh/Det. If you want to stick to hope in that they will fix the 4.0 rotation, then I say SpS.

---

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrasper

That's up for debate. With the revelation that the 3.0 rotation does more dps then the 4.0, one might say just skip spell speed altogether and go for Dh/Det. If you want to stick to hope in that they will fix the 4.0 rotation, then I say SpS.

---

I would never go with Det, it has always been and still is a waste, cause for it to have any effect you'd need to put more points on it than is even possible.
That being said, while I personally am still a fan of SS, with the 3.x rotation being superior atm, I can see Crit having probably the most benefit. So, provided we don't get a fix soon, I'd most likely go Crit > SS > DH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lelila38

I would never go with Det, it has always been and still is a waste, cause for it to have any effect you'd need to put more points on it than is even possible.
That being said, while I personally am still a fan of SS, with the 3.x rotation being superior atm, I can see Crit having probably the most benefit. So, provided we don't get a fix soon, I'd most likely go Crit > SS > DH

---

Preliminary numbers show that DH>>Det>CH for pure dps (speed is hard to quantify- it's more of a stat where you "grab a number you're comfortable with").
The CH nerf was severe. I cannot stress how much DH outscales it in our current stat range (you need to spike CH to over 3k for it to overtake DH).
Determination seems to be holding quite well VS CH too, although it doesn't scale as well as DH.
Your best bet is to get whatever speed you're comfortable with and then stack as much DH as possible, and use Det to fill the gaps or, if not possible, CH.

For melee can see details possibly being valid, even though hard to believe, crit and dhit seem more valuable, but I don't have numbers to compare.

For Blm Spell Speed was always top priority, than crit..., last det. Can't imagine det being more important for Blm than SS, unless we have hard numbers to compare..., or det somehow increases the process likelihood or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiroe

For melee can see details possibly being valid, even though hard to believe, crit and dhit seem more valuable, but I don't have numbers to compare.

For Blm Spell Speed was always top priority, than crit..., last det. Can't imagine det being more important for Blm than SS, unless we have hard numbers to compare..., or det somehow increases the process likelihood or something.

---

"details" = det (ffing mobile auto correct)
"process" = proc (again.., auto correct)

sry, but couldn't edit the post from my mobile..

Except back in 2.o determination was actually of higher value then crit for sometime ;)
Testing also needs to be done if DH has any impact, i know Red Mage it plays more of a role

If anything, most of the data I've read on the forums/reddit are of DH and how the numbers indicate it being the better stat. Until someone is able to crunch the numbers on Crit and Det then DH is the safest bet.

This is mathematical.
The scalings change with each expansion, so whatever was true for HW has no bearing on what's true for SB.
Leaving speed aside for a moment (hard to quantify, as usual), dervy and a few other folk has a reddit thread with preliminary numbers (quite a bit of data, but they wanted finer points for the interpolation).
These numbers showed that, for SB, just for a pure dps perspective, DH>>Det>CH.
This makes sense because crit scaling got cut down to a third (you need like 66 points of crit to grab the 1% crit chance).
We have nothing in our kits that further augments crits and nothing that benefits from it (we don't get a Firestarter for sure if Fire crits, for example), so all crit gives is raw dps.
Therefore, as far as we know at the moment for SB, Det might be the better choice, for our secondary stat range.
(Can't find the thread :/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

This is mathematical.
The scalings change with each expansion, so whatever was true for HW has no bearing on what's true for SB.
Leaving speed aside for a moment (hard to quantify, as usual), dervy and a few other folk has a reddit thread with preliminary numbers (quite a bit of data, but they wanted finer points for the interpolation).
These numbers showed that, for SB, just for a pure dps perspective, DH>>Det>CH.
This makes sense because crit scaling got cut down to a third (you need like 66 points of crit to grab the 1% crit chance).
We have nothing in our kits that further augments crits and nothing that benefits from it (we don't get a Firestarter for sure if Fire crits, for example), so all crit gives is raw dps.
Therefore, as far as we know at the moment for SB, Det might be the better choice, for our secondary stat range.
(Can't find the thread :/)

---

The thread on Reddit? Yeah... go read the comments.

For BLM, there has been an almost negligible difference between weights based on a dummy rotation and weights based on a theoretical rotation of one GCD. Even though buffs mana tick stuff ought to be accounted for, these don't change the spell speed weight significantly. Nearly all BLM damage has to come from weaponskills, and therefore benefits from spell speed about equally.

Moreover, unless core BLM gameplay stops being mostly hardcasting, it is hard to dethrone spell speed as a practical personal preference regardless of other stats' effectiveness. If you factored in a reasonable estimate of how many casts get lost for lack of it, you might end up having to utility-weight it higher than INT if you're really bad at it (like me). Now for career BLMs, I feel it's more like by the time you hit the SS threshold where more won't make things a single bit easier, it has already hit the point where increasing returns on SS has it outweighing other secondaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaroldSaxon

The thread on Reddit? Yeah... go read the comments.

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...o_stat_values/
This is the thread for reference.
I read the comments... what exactly should stand out here?
He has some ultra minor corrections and people asking about crit for BRD/MNK due to their job mechanics and some talk on tenacity VS CH.
You need to be a bit more specific...

(Note that dervy posted this. The guy that does the stat weights every two patches or so. I tend to be partial towards believing him, and having glanced over his numbers, it seems to look aight).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyHirose

For BLM, there has been an almost negligible difference between weights based on a dummy rotation and weights based on a theoretical rotation of one GCD. Even though buffs mana tick stuff ought to be accounted for, these don't change the spell speed weight significantly. Nearly all BLM damage has to come from weaponskills, and therefore benefits from spell speed about equally.

---

This is true for any job. The reason we've always been able to get away with speed stacking is because of our infinite mana pool. That, and our dots frequently clip due to Thundercloud (and you can swap out T3 for something else (B4) in your UI cycle if the timer is still very long on the current dot).

Well, that is the dirty secret behind all weighting in FFXIV (so far). You can hold off on actual potency estimates for a lot of jobs (except bard) for months and still come up with decent gear recommendations so long as your estimates of overall crit rate and weaponskill time are good. Particularly because SE has predictably made main stat that much more powerful than secondaries. But abilities (being unaffected by SS) end up adjusting that a bit. Autos also used to dampen SS value... not so much today.

Come to think of it, tanks and healers also don't need a whole lot of damage estimation to get alright weights for damage purposes, either. Now, if only I hadn't spent all of HW meditating on the mysteries of SS rounding....

edit: Fermi estimation can get you really far sometimes

I'm very late to the party and just read galvuus theory crafting on 3.0 vs 4.0 rotation and wow that is such an eye opener! I love the ease of using the 3.0 rotation and it is good to know that that is our highest DPS rotation.

I don't have any qualms with b4 not being part of single target at all in fact I would prefer it if it was only useful for aoe double flares. the 3.0 rotation is much easier and that helps with all the movement were gonna be doing in deltascape 3 and 4!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyHirose

snip

---

Well, nothing stops us from gathering an arbitrarily large amount of data beyond time and/or patience.
We can do a fairly accurate fit with that, adding to the given certainties (potencies and other stuff on the tooltip).
When you have a million or two of points, variance simply statistically dissipates. And since it's all relational, we don't even really need the actual damage formula, either.

I'm not sure why we're discussing this, but I like it, even if it has almost no relevance to the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paoweeotter

I'm very late to the party and just read galvuus theory crafting on 3.0 vs 4.0 rotation and wow that is such an eye opener! I love the ease of using the 3.0 rotation and it is good to know that that is our highest DPS rotation.

I don't have any qualms with b4 not being part of single target at all in fact I would prefer it if it was only useful for aoe double flares. the 3.0 rotation is much easier and that helps with all the movement were gonna be doing in deltascape 3 and 4!

---

Interesting. The only two mechanics that annoy me in all of Deltascape are some V1.0 ball patters and V4.0 void Blizzard 3 (it's actual bollocks).
That said, I've been testing the 3.X rotation, and have >4.3k on all of them except 4.0 because of Decisive Battle. This is a slight bit over the 4.0 parses I was having (~4.2k), so there it is.
I'm glad I was of service, either way :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

I'm not sure why we're discussing this, but I like it, even if it has almost no relevance to the topic.

---

If someone is talking to you, you have something they want. I don't think it's cynical to say this... it's a law of negotiation! This was something going through my mind while questing SB, in fact; so much of it, especially the MSQ, is straight up gobbie busydeals.

Anyway, that being the case, at least what I think I want is for people not to be afraid of collecting and discussing the numbers, as if they must be treated with mystique and caution and wait for the experts to hand them down from an ivory tower. No way, guys. There are no experts; none but all of us. A lot of the open discussion on this (at least on the English-speaking side) kind of died down during Heavensward. What was left moved to Reddit mostly, where it gets talked in circles usually and must eventually fall off the front pages so there is not much followup in the end (that is the software's purpose, and I don't blame it or any people for that; I'd much rather not play any part in that game where people try to put down one forum or another). I miss that wrong-but-honest ARR attitude towards theory, with a lot of spreadsheets and point-by-point testing flying around, where you can track which insights lead to what conclusions. To me, that is a better way than what is going on now, even as the very last formulas left seem to be getting close to 100% accuracy.

Otherwise, as per paragraph #1, I'd avoid posting here (or anywhere) and attempt to get on with pwning raids instead of trying to share a single tip, opinion, or equation. Yet here I am at post #549, tryna do my best by as many folk as I can, contrary to my ornery nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyHirose

snip

---

You do have access to the spreadsheets with the data points (they were on the reddit thread), the most recent formulas and even the C# code for the simulator.
Naturally, we must put "good faith" that the simulator is reasonably accurate and that there the functions that actual produce the data points (that we have no access to) are reasonably smooth (and even then, people did figure out the speed tiering).

That said, on a fundamental level, I agree with you.
I'm of the opinion that it's important to understand on what grounds we chose a secondary stat in detriment of another- people should understand that numbers like "stat weights" are linearizations around specific points, that you incur a greater error the farther you get from that point, that the quadratic and hyperbolic behaviour of stats may or may not favour stacking around certain values... things like that.
People also need to understand the limitations of the simulator in capturing finer details inherent to some stats (speed, and how certain breakpoints that allow you to clip certain buffs would be invaluable- that next tier may not just be 0.01 gcds shorter, it may result in an extra Fire IV getting the effects of the Balance or Ley Lines) or even decision making (I don't know how it behaves regarding things like proc management; probably not so well, due to oddities in the 3.4 SCH weights).
You should use information like this as a starting point, understand the formulas, grab Matlab or a sheet of paper or whatever, crunch some "napkin numbers" and hit a dummy for a couple of hours for experimental verification.
I do this, I have tens of hours of test parses- in dummies and fights- and like 30 Ariyala gearsets. I like this kind of thing, and I fundamentally like to understand what's going on in general.

But I also adequate the answer to the question x)
Not everyone has the time, dedication or simply interest in that sorta thing. Spending hours to get a measly 1 or 2% in performance assuming you execute perfectly isn't for everyone. And that's fine, different strokes for different folks.
So if I'm asked "what secondary yields the most damage?", the question inherently entails that the person asking isn't aware (or perhaps isn't interested) in these finer points. So I give a simple, approximate answer that should be better than randomly allotting the secondaries, but not as good as truly min/maxing them.
Now, if some asks what's the best set in terms of secondaries that also meets a speed tier so that both Ley Lines and the arrow clip on at least the Kth spell, this is a harder question that warrants a deeper answer.
Either way, I don't mind people who want simple guidelines to follow without much thought.

Tl;dr: I mostly agree with you, but understand if someone wants a simple and effective answer that's neither completely min/maxed, nor goes in-depth into the inner workings of things (aka: if some wants a secondary stat heuristic black-box xD).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

(and even then, people did figure out the speed tiering).

---

Funny you mention that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyHirose

Funny you mention that....

---

Which led to the ominous revelations that "other things are tiered" by a SE representative.
I believe it was a random thing too, on super low speed ranges that were tested for the sake of completion x)
You could actually see the step function in the data points at that low range (because you'd have a wealth of points for each step).
I find coincidental but meaningful findings like that charming.

I wouldn't say it wasn't for sake of completion. I was trying to cut to the meat of it and Empyreal Arrow's skipping 0.02 seconds was ultimately the key to it. Before that, I was simply hoping that looking at the 0.01 skips would narrow what the true theoretical base GCD was and the very existence of the 0.02s skip harpooned that theory.

Hey guys new player here and been reading a LOT about BLM rotations and now I'm near 70, I saw an optimal AOE rotation skipping fire 2 when you hit 68 umbral hearts? you get more DPS when you do bliz3>enoch>thunder4>bliz4>fire3>flare>flare>conver>flare>foul? than having to cast 2 fire2 before the first flare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schulz8

Hey guys new player here and been reading a LOT about BLM rotations and now I'm near 70, I saw an optimal AOE rotation skipping fire 2 when you hit 68 umbral hearts? you get more DPS when you do bliz3>enoch>thunder4>bliz4>fire3>flare>flare>conver>flare>foul? than having to cast 2 fire2 before the first flare?

---

That sounds about right with the occasional TC proc tossed in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrasper

That sounds about right with the occasional TC proc tossed in.

---

Really? Doing the 2 FireII is an aoe loss?
Well, great then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunnyHirose

I wouldn't say it wasn't for sake of completion. I was trying to cut to the meat of it and Empyreal Arrow's skipping 0.02 seconds was ultimately the key to it. Before that, I was simply hoping that looking at the 0.01 skips would narrow what the true theoretical base GCD was and the very existence of the 0.02s skip harpooned that theory.

---

Oh, you did it!
Well then, isn't this fortunate. You have my most sincere thanks- out of all the discoveries made, that's the one I used the most in HW.
I shudder to think of how utter rubbish my sets would've been with wasted speed points and without being able to test the specific tiers for arrow/balance/ley lines clipping if I went 3xF4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrasper

That sounds about right with the occasional TC proc tossed in.

---

Depends on the number of enemies.
5 or more, you should Fire II with the extra Umbral Heart you have (Fire II>Fire II>Flare>Foul>Flare>Transpose>T4>B4>F3>more of this).
I think this is also the case for 4 enemies. I'll calc this for you and edit the post in a couple of hours.
If you get a TC proc try to save it for after Tranpose btw, so you don't sit there waiting for the mana tick doing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

Depends on the number of enemies.
5 or more, you should Fire II with the extra Umbral Heart you have (Fire II>Fire II>Flare>Foul>Flare>Transpose>T4>B4>F3>more of this).
I think this is also the case for 4 enemies. I'll calc this for you and edit the post in a couple of hours.
If you get a TC proc try to save it for after Tranpose btw, so you don't sit there waiting for the mana tick doing nothing.

---

Eh, I found out the fire 2s aren't really necessary even with that numbers, and waiting for the thunder proc for expert runs is also eh. You sometimes get 3 in a row which you do more damage by just spamming the TC. I know you like to min/max everything, but for dungeon runs, it sometimes isn't required when doing the basic is good enough.

Min/maxing for EX, raids, and savage I am all behind that. For everyday runs though, I would rather be a lazy bastard and do good enough without thinking too hard about it.

Should I use T3 procs in place of F4? Or just ignore until Umbral phase?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf_Gang

Should I use T3 procs in place of F4? Or just ignore until Umbral phase?

---

It's a priority system! The first rule is:
If your T3 is ticking, let it tick as much as possible. You can always let it tick thrice (9s).

For TC location in your 3.X rotation:
At the end of the UI cycle (guarantees full mana for next AF cycle) > Somewhere in your UI cycle > Somewhere in your AF cycle

For TC location in your 4.0 rotation (assuming no Triple or Sharpcast up):
At the end of the UI cycle (guarantees full mana for next AF cycle) > Somewhere in your UI cycle > Before your Fire (lose a Fire IV) = After your Fire (lose a Fire IV unless if you have Firestarter)
(If you get a Firestarter proc, you can refresh AF, so delay TC as much as possible, then use it and refresh AF. Sharpcast is equivalent to the Firestarter scenario, since you're guaranteed that proc)

For TC location in your 4.0 rotation (using Triple after F3):
At the end of the UI cycle (guarantees full mana for next AF cycle) > Somewhere in your UI cycle > Before your Fire (after Triple'd 3x Fire IVs) = After your Fire (before Triple'd 3x Fire IVs)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

snip
At the end of the UI cycle (guarantees full mana for next AF cycle) > Somewhere in your UI cycle > Before your Fire (after Triple'd 3x Fire IVs) = After your Fire (before Triple'd 3x Fire IVs)

---

I think I lost track of the amount of times TC timer disappeared in the 4.0 rotation. I definitely prefer using it more in 3.0 rotation.

Edit: I would like to add that I cleared the extreme training dummies faster with the 3.0 rotation then I did with the 4.0 rotation.

So what is the consensus right now regarding optimal rotation or is there not enough data yet?

Also, for the 3.0 rotation, is the best:

Blizzard III > LeyLines/Enochian > Blizzard IV > Thunder III > Fire III > Fire IV [x3] > Fire I > Fire IV > Blizzard III > Blizzard IV > Thunder III ?

Also, when do we use Procs? (Aside saving for movement) Thanks for the help.

P.S. I recently returned to the game. Left before 3.1 dropped after playing non stop through 2.0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatshine

So what is the consensus right now regarding optimal rotation or is there not enough data yet?

Also, for the 3.0 rotation, is the best:

Blizzard III > LeyLines/Enochian > Blizzard IV > Thunder III > Fire III > Fire IV [x3] > Fire I > Fire IV > Blizzard III > Blizzard IV > Thunder III ?

Also, when do we use Procs? (Aside saving for movement) Thanks for the help.

P.S. I recently returned to the game. Left before 3.1 dropped after playing non stop through 2.0

---

3.x rotation if movement is required (almost anything not a dummy) 4.0 rotation only if you can turret.

Blizzard IV is not used in the 3.x rotation outside of the opener, basically after opener would be T3->F3->F4->F4->F1->F4->F4->F4->B3->T3->F3... use procs whenever they occur, same for foul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

3.x rotation if movement is required (almost anything not a dummy) 4.0 rotation only if you can turret.

Blizzard IV is not used in the 3.x rotation outside of the opener, basically after opener would be T3->F3->F4->F4->F1->F4->F4->F4->B3->T3->F3... use procs whenever they occur, same for foul.

---

Cool thanks. Why is Blizzard IV not used outside the opener?

Also what about AOE rotation?

B4 just isn't needed for 3.x rotation as we only use 4 F4s, making the MP discount wasted. It also makes our UI go by faster due to not casting it, meaning we spend more time in AF.

The AoE rotation I use is T4 > B4 > F3 > F2 > F2 > Flare > Foul > Flare > Transpose. I use TC procs whenever they come up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnanimousCynic

B4 just isn't needed for 3.x rotation as we only use 4 F4s, making the MP discount wasted. It also makes our UI go by faster due to not casting it, meaning we spend more time in AF.

The AoE rotation I use is T4 > B4 > F3 > F2 > F2 > Flare > Foul > Flare > Transpose. I use TC procs whenever they come up.

---

Skip F2 for 3 enemies btw. Pps loss.

I'd like to clear something out as people might be getting the wrong idea on this whole 4.0 versus 3.0 debacle. In terms of pure uninterrupted PPS, 4.0>3.0. Yet when translated to an actual non-dummy fight with necessary movement that causes interrupted F4 chaining, 3.0 surpasses 4.0. This does not mean you drop 4.0 like it's hot and use pure 3.0 outside the opener. No. If you want the best DPS possible you use 4.0 when it's applicable (those times where you can get away with B4>6 F4 uninterrupted), then revert back to a 3.0 AF phase when you need to move or when you need to get some T3Ps/Fouls off. PPS is merely the potential of a certain rotation that when applied as written on spreadsheets would yield the best end DPS. But mechanics and movement will severely alter that end DPS and in some cases, the concluded 'best' PPS rotation is overtaken by the inferior one.

I was in a blm discussion and I got burnt for stating 3.0>4.0. I may have chosen my words poorly and may have come off as someone promoting the use of solely 3.0 and abandoning 4.0 altogether. This is not my intention. I want to promote awareness that given the current state of BLM, you'd have to be willing to spend the majority of the fight on that 'shit rotation'(as someone coined it) called 3.0 if you want to get big deeps.

I did a run of Susano and I only cast B4 5 times and yielded a DPS score far greater than any i-will-4.0-for-the-majority-of-this-fight run I ever did. Yes, 4.0 should be primary and 3.0 is secondary. But none of that matters when on my best run so far, I was only able to set off 5 B4s and the majority of the fight was with 3.0 AF windows. Some people may say that I simply need to git gud with 4.0. Thing is, I've studied the fight and there simply is no way doing a pure 4.0 rotation would let you hit the numbers you would probably get by mixing it up. Purists would say their 4.0 numbers greatly exceeds whatever they're getting with a 3.0 run. I care not for a 4.0 run doing 200 DPS more than your 3.0 run if the DPS you are getting is 3700 and 3500 respectively. What matters to me is how do I get to the 4k club and in my experience, 4.0 when possible and 3.0 when it's not.

We should adapt with what we currently have as this has been what BLMs have been doing since day 1. If you aren't utilizing the tools you have, old and new, then I wish you luck in your quest for top-tier DPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soslinky

I'd like to clear something out as people might be getting the wrong idea on this whole 4.0 versus 3.0 debacle. In terms of pure uninterrupted PPS, 4.0>3.0. Yet when translated to an actual non-dummy fight with necessary movement that causes interrupted F4 chaining, 3.0 surpasses 4.0. This does not mean you drop 4.0 like it's hot and use pure 3.0 outside the opener.

---

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise? The problem is with the random nature of abilities targeting you for most encounters, you never really know if you can pull off a 4.0 AF phase or if you will be required to move during it, sure common sense where it applies, if you know you can turret for like 30 seconds or whatever, by all means utilize 4.0 rotation it is more dps after all if not interrupted. But again the problem is usually that you never quite know whatever you can pull it off or not beforehand, and this sadly means that its quite the opposite of what you suggested, 4.0 ONLY when you know you can pull it off and 3.x otherwise.