Black Mage Sanctuary - A Guide to DPS

I wanted to put that out there for the people who are asking if they should drop B4 altogether (there's one a few posts back). Also for the people wondering about it but never bothered to ask.

I don't understand the whole 3.0/4.0 rotation argument. The Stormblood rotation just seems better, albeit a little harder to do, but even then, I think the BLM rotation isn't difficult.

Your rotation shouldn't be so strict in a real fight anyways to just sticking to an exact order of actions. Because of movement, mana, procs, timing... it's super dynamic. You should always be evaluating the situation and doing what's necessary. If you understand the class enough that you can just make decisions on the fly, and not bind yourself into one rotation or the other, you'll do good DPS. Even in a heavy movement real fight, you should be doing the "4.0" rotation, and playing BLM to its fullest. We shouldn't be classifying them as "3.0" and "4.0" anyways, there's just "4.0", and you use the tools given to you to do as much DPS as possible.

https://www.fflogs.com/reports/gnWCK...pe=damage-done

Example log from Susano doing "4.0" rotation. Just because there's movement doesn't mean the "3.0" rotation is better. No single target AST cards, no infusion potions, no Ninja, no Summoner, PF pug party.

Depending on the changes they make to BLM, this whole discussion might just turn on its head anyways. I wouldn't get used to doing a subpar rotation, play the class as intended.

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.

---

From what I been reading, 3.0 is actually superior. Even on dummies where 4.0 is executed perfectly. That's why there's all this outrage going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crevox

I don't understand the whole 3.0/4.0 rotation argument. The Stormblood rotation just seems better, albeit a little harder to do, but even then, I think the BLM rotation isn't difficult.

---

Let me give you some personal numbers, mind it's only on the Susano SSS dummy, as I'm on ps4 and don't have access to my actual numbers. Both rotations have been trained and were executed perfectly.

4.0 rotation, aka B4 in every ice phase: left over time 3 seconds
3.0 rotation adjusted to the new skills by using B4 in opener and in combination with Triplecast: left over time 10 seconds

You see, even on a dummy situation, with zero movement, the 4.0 rotation is inferior.

I'm not even gonna bother saying anything to Blm being easy, it has an easy to learn rotation, but is one of the hardest classes to master in actual fights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crevox

I don't understand the whole 3.0/4.0 rotation argument. The Stormblood rotation just seems better, albeit a little harder to do, but even then, I think the BLM rotation isn't difficult.

---

It isn't really about what is more easy or difficult, but rather what does the most damage in a given situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crevox

snip

---

Eeeh... PF party too, but favouring the 3.X rotation:

https://www.fflogs.com/reports/bH42t...pe=damage-done

NIN gives me ~1.6% dps over the whole fight, no single target cards either, and I did get one stupid stun (or two, can't remember, but I remember being very annoyed for having to hit Transpose).
Got about ~100ish dps over you (when you factor the NIN's dps contribution), which is actually what the calculations predict in terms of pps in the vacuum for 3.X VS 4.0.

Just putting more data out there. Hate uploading 99% logs, but I think it's worth it this time.
(ilv 315 btw)

My personal record was ~4.4k on Susano using mostly 3.0 rotation and some b4 during opener and when foul was almost off cd during umbral phase. It seems.. awkward honestly, i'd like to use b4 more during umbral but then astral rotation feels so tight and cluncky, it just not worth it. They should buff astral/umbral to 15 second and maybe give us 500-600 additional mp to make it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwaeron89

My personal record was ~4.4k on Susano using mostly 3.0 rotation and some b4 during opener and when foul was almost off cd during umbral phase. It seems.. awkward honestly, i'd like to use b4 more during umbral but then astral rotation feels so tight and cluncky, it just not worth it. They should buff astral/umbral to 15 second and maybe give us 500-600 additional mp to make it better.

---

If it's not a log on FFLogs, then it's probably invalid due to aoeing the other stones and/or timing issues.

Quote:

---

Eeeh... PF party too, but favouring the 3.X rotation:

https://www.fflogs.com/reports/bH42t...pe=damage-done

NIN gives me ~1.6% dps over the whole fight, no single target cards either, and I did get one stupid stun (or two, can't remember, but I remember being very annoyed for having to hit Transpose).
Got about ~100ish dps over you (when you factor the NIN's dps contribution), which is actually what the calculations predict in terms of pps in the vacuum for 3.X VS 4.0.

Just putting more data out there. Hate uploading 99% logs, but I think it's worth it this time.
(ilv 315 btw)

---

My run is far from perfect (I have very few runs as BLM on Susano, mistakes + encounter rng) but the point I'm trying to make is that it feels silly to learn this alternative rotation when they are likely going to make changes on Tuesday. Tonight they may preview some of those changes and we'll have a better idea. They may make no changes, who knows, but even then, this is all over what comes down to less than a 3% difference. The point is that both "styles" can reach 99th percentile, and I highly doubt everyone in this forum is discussing this all over trying to do better in that top percentile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crevox

snip.

---

I'm just trying to play as optimally as possible.
I uploaded that because I thought it was interesting that the difference between your parse and mine is super close to what's theoretically predicted by the pps calculation (like 4%, which on a 4.15k parse, is around 200).
So I posted it as additional "confirmation" of the math.

I do agree with your sentiment... but part of me is very frightened that SE won't fix the issue at all... so I kinda am also getting used to swapping between the two rotations :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crevox

If it's not a log on FFLogs, then it's probably invalid due to aoeing the other stones and/or timing issues.

---

Well im not bragging about my dps, just telling 3.0 rotation works better than 4.0 for me.

fire4 and bliz4 cast time will be reduced to 2.8sec base, also triplecast down from 90s to 60s cooldown
i dont feel like this will fix the current issues :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by affenmensch

fire4 and bliz4 cast time will be reduced to 2.8sec base, also triplecast down from 90s to 60s cooldown
i dont feel like this will fix the current issues :/

---

Will help with rotations being tight, but not addressing the issue with our broken umbral heart mechanic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by affenmensch

fire4 and bliz4 cast time will be reduced to 2.8sec base, also triplecast down from 90s to 60s cooldown
i dont feel like this will fix the current issues :/

---

They also said Foul will not use MP, and MP in general will be "adjusted" in some way while acknowledging the fact that completely running out of MP or not being able to cast the full rotation was a problem. This alone will be a big difference.

So it's definitely a step in the right direction and it's possible there are other tweaks that could add up to a significant QoL improvement.

F4 +B4 base cast time being reduced by .2 seconds gives us 1.4 more seconds of forgiveness, not counting SpS, in our 4.0 rotation. Maybe this will help make 4.0 Rotation slightly easier to execute? idk if the math would still point to 3.0v2 rotation being better DPS overall.

Triplecast getting recast time reduced doesn't feel like it'll help much, since you still want to use it with Ley Lines to maximize the GCD reduction.

I really think that using triple with ley lines shoudln't be considered an absolute, the skill was created for us to use in moments of prolonged movements, which do happen, since we all know that fights are scripted, we CAN anticipate when triplecast can be used to negate movements heavy sections.

Triple recast reduction may in fact become a boon for blm mobility to a form. Itll directly flow into swift cast for a generic all purpose quad cast.

That and lower recast means its more viable for triple ley lines stacking for more benefit of reduced recast while under leylines effects.

Foul using 0 mp will also solve some issues.

Mp adjustment sounds great.

Heres hoping for a minor potency buff (in light of triples recast reduction) and we should be back in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

I really think that using triple with ley lines shoudln't be considered an absolute, the skill was created for us to use in moments of prolonged movements, which do happen, since we all know that fights are scripted, we CAN anticipate when triplecast can be used to negate movements heavy sections.

---

Every Chaos-Blizzard III in Omega 4 LOL

I am just happy they acknowledged the MP issues. With these changes the 4.0 rotation will become a lot smoother but is it enough? Is it enough to make 4.0 more viable than 3.0 rota?
Maybe the other adjustments not mentioned will make up for the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cherub

I am just happy they acknowledged the MP issues. With these changes the 4.0 rotation will become a lot smoother but is it enough? Is it enough to make 4.0 more viable than 3.0 rota?
Maybe the other adjustments not mentioned will make up for the rest.

---

3.X still has higher pps than 4.0- 152 VS 148, the same margin we have now.
The only way to change this is to either buff Fire/Blizzard IV potencies or significantly shorten Blizzard IV's cast time (Fire IV doesn't need this adjusted).
I don't think they understand why Umbral Hearts is a dps loss most of the time...

That said, buffs are buffs, so it's a slow step in the right direction.
Now they need to understand why the 4.0 rotation is suboptimal most of the time.

The problem is it was never an issue with us not being able to execute the UH rotation, but that it simply does less dps than a rotation that only uses B4 during opener.
The adjustments might help with the mp problem, but the UH core mechanic is still broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lelila38

The problem is it was never an issue with us not being able to execute the UH rotation, but that it simply does less dps than a rotation that only uses B4 during opener.
The adjustments might help with the mp problem, but the UH core mechanic is still broken.

---

Moreover, if it's true that there will be more MP adjustments and we get slightly more MP or Fire IV reduced MP cost, 3.0 rotation will be even better.
Doing the 3.0 rotation Fire IV x2 - Fire I - Fire IV x2 when you are full MP leaves you with 2400 MP (MP cost of Fire IV). More MP or less MP cost from Fire IV would allow you to put an extra Fire IV. With 4.0 Rotation it would be impossible to fit an extra Fire IV without a Firestart proc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlphaSonic

Moreover, if it's true that there will be MP adjustments and we get slightly more MP or Fire IV reduced MP cost, 3.0 rotation will be even better.
Doing the 3.0 rotation Fire IV x2 - Fire I - Fire IV x2 when you are full MP leaves you with 2400 MP (MP cost of Fire IV). More MP or less MP cost from Fire IV would allow you to put an extra Fire IV. With 4.0 Rotation it would be impossible to fit an extra Fire IV without a Firestart proc.

---

Hmm sounds interesting, you think we might be able to do 3-1-2 without B4? It might end up being tight again though, so might will require some testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lelila38

Hmm sounds interesting, you think we might be able to do 3-1-2 without B4? It might end up being tight again though, so might will require some testing.

---

I think 2-1-3 would be more forgiving since B3 cast time is much faster than F1 with 3 AF stacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

3.X still has higher pps than 4.0- 152 VS 148, the same margin we have now.

---

Would it be possible to show me your numbers with the new Blizz/Fire IV 2.8 cast time? I'm getting different results.

139,3057081 PPS (3.0) vs 140,1707923 PPS (4.0) which means 4.0 is now slightly ahead if performed perfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilyth

Would it be possible to show me your numbers with the new Blizz/Fire IV 2.8 cast time? I'm getting different results.

139,3057081 PPS (3.0) vs 140,1707923 PPS (4.0) which means 4.0 is now slightly ahead if performed perfectly.

---

But if there's some mana adjustments maybe 3.0 rotation may be able to fit 5 Fire IV

cast time of b4 and f4 reduced by
by 0.2 sec?? that's just too OP,... 0.1 would be by far enough lol..

with that, blm can finally earn it's spot
(...sarcasm)

All of the things they have told us about wont really fix the issue of 3.0 vs 4.0 rotations. The point at which the 4.0 rotation surpasses the 3.0 is raw PPS assuming 0 random procs, is when your Fire 4s take 2.25s to cast. And the only reason for this is because at this speed, you start clipping your thunder dot by 2 ticks. Having them take .2s less at the start does help reach this, but that doesn't fix the problem. Now if you introduce T3P, which highly benefit the 3.0 rotations flexibility, you still don't have solid reason to do 4.0. They need to make UH do something more beneficial, or revert the potency nerf. But who knows, maybe there is more that we don't know. We will just have to wait. MP management will most likely not benefit 4.0 outside of making the rotation more reliable, not potent.

We need our potencies back, I don't understand why it was reduced in the first place. Blm was decent, but hardly overpowered.

Maybe both a potency and a castspeed buff would fix it, unless they want B4 to be a niche spell that you use when you know you can fix extra F4, has anyone tested if using B4 only on a leyline rotation is beneficial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiroe

cast time of b4 and f4 reduced by
by 0.2 sec?? that's just too OP,... 0.1 would be by far enough lol..

with that, blm can finally earn it's spot
(...sarcasm)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lelila38

We need our potencies back, I don't understand why it was reduced in the first place. Blm was decent, but hardly overpowered.

---

The 2.8 cast buff is being way too undervalued apparently. Here are some numbers so you guys can see what it actually did.

Potency alone means nothing for BLM. What does make a difference is the Potency per second and it has been buffed for F4 and B4.

Previously on HW, F4 had 280 potency with a 3 seconds cast time. With all the multipliers in place, 1.8 and 1.05 for AFIII and Enochian respectively, the total potency was 529.2. If you divide it by its cast time, you get its potency per second -> 529.2/3 = 176.4

Right now on SB, F4 has 260 potency with a 3 seconds cast time. Applying the same math as above, we have a total potency of 491.4 and a PPS of 163.8, which is indeed significantly weaker.

Now, with the 2.8 cast time, we have the previous potency (491.4) divided by the new cast time -> 491.4/2.8 = 175.5.

What this means is that F4 PPS went from 163.8 to 175.5, which is almost as good as the old 176.4! And it casts faster. But it's reasonable to point out it's only a PPS increase if you actually cast it (no Triple or Swift), which is unfortunate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeMinx

All of the things they have told us about wont really fix the issue of 3.0 vs 4.0 rotations. The point at which the 4.0 rotation surpasses the 3.0 is raw PPS assuming 0 random procs, is when your Fire 4s take 2.25s to cast

---

I'd really like to see your numbers on this as well. According to what me and acouple friends have been looking at, 4.0 is already better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilyth

snip

---

Like I said, a buff is a buff and as far as that's concerned, I'm content.
But the core issue is that 3.X rotation still beats out the new 4.0 one.
I, for one, am very interested in the numbers your friends have and would like to see them if possible.
I want to make sure I didn't overlook anything...

(I can get you RyeMinx's numbers if he doesn't reply to you, btw)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilyth

Would it be possible to show me your numbers with the new Blizz/Fire IV 2.8 cast time? I'm getting different results.

139,3057081 PPS (3.0) vs 140,1707923 PPS (4.0) which means 4.0 is now slightly ahead if performed perfectly.

---

Add Foul to both UI cycles and that becomes 152 VS 149 pps, favouring the 3.X one. If the base MP buff (and the no MP Foul) allow for the 3.X rotation to get one more Fire IV, then the 3.X rotation yields around 155 pps.

But these changes buffs both 3.x and 4.0 rotation equally, so while nice they are adding buffs, unless there are other changes they didn't document it won't really change the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

Add Foul to both UI cycles and that becomes 152 VS 149 pps, favouring the 3.X one. If the base MP buff (and the no MP Foul) allow for the 3.X rotation to get one more Fire IV, then the 3.X rotation yields around 155 pps.

---

But foul is on a static timer as long as you manage to keep Enochian active, so you will cast the same amount of them in the 3.x or 4.0 rotations. The timing on when you cast them may change, but ultimately you will cast the same amount of them in both rotations, thus you shouldn't really include foul in any calculations comparing the 2. The recast time of F4 won't change the amount you are able to cast either, only how fast you can burn through your mp, and you were already able to cast 5xF4 in the 3.x rotation before your mp dips too low, that's not gonna change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

But foul is on a static timer as long as you manage to keep Enochian active, so you will cast the same amount of them in the 3.x or 4.0 rotations. The timing on when you cast them may change, but ultimately you will cast the same amount of them in both rotations, thus you shouldn't really include foul in any calculations comparing the 2.

---

Exactly. Foul is a constant in both rotations so it doesn't affect their PPS disparity.

@Galvuu NP. ^^ I'll post them (after a quick review) after I get home from work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

snip

---

I got this on Reddit too... there's something about the Foul placement in the rotation (especially the 3.X one) that people forget.

Where you cast Foul has huge implications on your overall pps (and, by consequence, dps) of your overall rotation.
On your UI cycle, you have the options of casting the T3 dot (which, depending on clipping, is likely gonna net you 300+ potency) or, if you're lucky, a TC proc (500+ potency, again guestimatng for clipping), Blizzard IV (the most horrid pps out of all our viable spells) and Foul.
You need to cast two things in your UI cycle to get your whole mana back (save for server tick nonsense).
This means that if you don't cast Foul in your UI cycle, whatever spell you replace it by is going to yield a massive loss in pps in your UI cycle and, by extension, your whole rotation.
This is why casting Foul in your AF rotation is terrible (aside from AF refresh issues)- it's terrible because now you're forced to shove a crappy filler on your UI cycle that brings your whole pps down (because you need to wait those two ticks).
The fact 3.X can afford to bypass B4 and go T3>Foul in UI is why it yields higher pps.
This is also why you use the 4.0 rotation when you have whatever necessary cooldowns available- to ensure you realign your Foul clock so you can Foul on every Ui cycle of your 3.X rotation.

If you want to think the way you are thinking, then you need to push that idea all the way- account for all spells in the entire fight.
If you Foul out of UI alignment often, at the end, you'll have a bunch of B4s and Blizzards and overwritten T3s and other useless nonsense.
A person who doesn't will have instead a bunch of Fires and Fire IVs.
Aka: a person that uses the 3.X with Foul only and 4.0 when they won't get Foul/Foul is sure to not be ready on the next UI cycle will slowly push ahead a pps lead over the whole fight.

Now you can say "well, ok, so I just B4 as filler if I don't have Foul and go into 4.0". Exactly- that's why you compare both with Foul.
That's why you use 3.X if you have Foul (on the head-to-head with Foul available, 3.X wins) and 4.0 otherwise (out of necessity, but it's surely convenient that it has a slight pps lead).
Further, you can make it so that you only use this 4.0 thing when you have Triple (Triple makes 4.0 beat 3.X in pps by a hair). Using it this way also reduces its vulnerability to mechanics, so it all wraps around very nicely for us.

This is all consequence of the fact that you need to cast two things in your UI cycle, and all non-Foul options are utter rubbish.

tl;dr: don't think of Foul in a vacuum. Understand that whenever Foul is available for UI the 3.X rotation yields higher pps, and when it's not you do the 4.0 both out of necessity (B4 is the only realistic filler spell) and because it also has a very slight pps lead over the 3.X one without Foul. Bonus points because you can align Triple with it every time.

that .2 sec is waaay to small a buff.., agree, it won't change the status quote

atleast tripple cast can be used/timed more for mechanics and not sav3f

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

Add Foul to both UI cycles and that becomes 152 VS 149 pps, favouring the 3.X one. If the base MP buff (and the no MP Foul) allow for the 3.X rotation to get one more Fire IV, then the 3.X rotation yields around 155 pps.

---

Oh and just one more thing RQ. You can't add foul. Not only because it is a constant in both, but it will never be in the same place in a rotation unless the rotation is exactly 30 seconds, which is neither the case for 3.0 and 4.0. If you add Foul, it inevitably will yield a higher PPS in a shorter rotation and vice-versa for a longer one, which is exactly what is giving the 3.0 rotation an edge in your calculations. But that is false since Foul is in a set timer and, therefore, affects both rotations the exact same way (PPS-wise).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilyth

snip

---

Read the post above where I have a massive explanation as to why you need to consider Foul and non-Foul rotations.
We don't have a rotation. We have a priority queue. Which is what I said in the "4.0 BLM numbers" thread.
The tl;dr is:
Foul up for UI? Go 3.X
No Foul for UI? Go 4.0 (align Triple with this, it's possible)

EDIT: There's actually a third possibility, since we're discussing this. It's do 4.0 until the Foul clock gets to a point where you'd get 2x Fouls in your UI cycle. Since you going four spells in UI is hella risky, you can only do three- 2xFoul > T3 > 3.X rotation. I didn't consider this because it's very easy to "upset" the Foul clock with mechanics and end up needing to Foul on the AF cycle, or just get a lot of unexpected procs and having to cut a F4 for Foul and other such nonsense. It's best, in my experience, to do what I said in that wall of text.

sometimes you hit 0 mp after f4, does that happen the same amount in 3.0 and 4.0 rotas? there foul has a slight advantage..

besides ofc always being able to cast it after B3 or transpose when waiting for a mp Tick,...

meaning we might end up holding on to foul, when we see high mp before casting the last fire 4 of a rota, better hold it "for the next rota", incase we have less mp next time, as a filler??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

I got this on Reddit too... there's something about the Foul placement in the rotation (especially the 3.X one) that people forget.

Where you cast Foul has huge implications on your overall pps (and, by consequence, dps) of your overall rotation.

---

Okay but you will always cast foul in UI whatever you're doing 3.x or 4.0 rotation yes? Just because its available doesn't mean you have to cast it straight away, you have literally 30 seconds to cast it before it goes to waste so you just delay it for your next UI cycle whatever you're doing 3.x or 4.0 rotation. The pps is exactly the same in both rotations, it doesn't magically increase because you cast it as soon as it becomes available. That said, what you said above about using 4.0 if its not available, and 3.x if it is makes some kind of sense, would have to test those numbers, but i doubt it will change much since it would still be a pps loss if you then encounter movement when utilizing that 4.0 rotation eliminating any pps gain you just gained in the UI phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiroe

sometimes you hit 0 mp after f4, does that happen the same amount in 3.0 and 4.0 rotas? there foul has a slight advantage..

---

Won't happen in 3.x rotation because you know you can only get a maximum of 5xF4 casts off, you simply won't have enough mp to cast a 6th so it cannot happen. But it really depends on if you go out of UI and back to AF without full mp, it's just something you'll have to learn to account for, quickly check your mp before you start that last F4 cast and if you can see you won't have enough mp to cast B3 afterwards then don't cast that extra F4.

So I was crunching some AoE numbers and this is what I got. Posted it on the "Something interesting..." thread and thought I'd throw it here too.

Quote:

---

2: T4 B4 F3 F4 F4 Flare Flare
3-5: T4 B4 F3 Flare Flare
6-8: T4 B4 F3 F2 F2 Flare Flare
9+: T4 F3 F2 F2 Flare

The more SS you have, the more T4 B4 F3 F2 F2 Flare Flare will probably creep into other areas, because of T4 clipping.

---

Please someone tell me I'm wrong.