Black Mage Sanctuary - A Guide to DPS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

Snip

---

Hm... let me see how I can explain this. I wanna captalize on this quote here: "The fact 3.X can afford to bypass B4 and go T3>Foul in UI is why it yields higher pps."

The calculations I did regarding the 3.0 rotation assume that you will, everytime, bypass the casting of a filler by having a perfect server tick (the same scenario of casting foul) and have full mana upon returning to AF. Which means the only spells you use during UI is T3. No other filler. It yields 139,3057081 PPS. And for the 4.0 rotation, you will use Blizz 4 (the filler) and Thunder during UI. The yielded PPS is 140,1707923. Both results do not include Foul. I believe so far you reached the same results, no? What we're pondering is whether or not including Foul makes a difference. So to illustrate this, let's make a thought experiment. Let's assume you have a spread of Fouls where you can stack Fouls indefinitely, and everytime you gain Polyglot (30 secs) the Foul stack is increased by 1. You no longer lose Fouls by not casting them before the next Polyglot is obtained. So far we agree that with the new 2.8 cast time and without Foul, 4.0 wins over 3.0. Here are 3 scenarios:

1: You use only the 4.0 rotation in a dummy for 300 seconds and then use all your Fouls. The total potency in this dummy would be something close to (140,1707923) * 300 + 10 Fouls.

2: You use only the 3.0 rotation in a dummy for 300 seconds and then use all your Fouls. The total potency in this dummy would be something close to (139,3057081) * 300 + 10 Fouls.

3: You use a mix of the 3.0 rotation with the 4.0 rotation in a dummy for 300 seconds and then use all your Fouls. The total potency in this dummy would be something close to [(139,3057081 * 150) + (140,1707923 * 150)] + 10 Fouls.

Would you agree that, whether or not I used the Fouls inside the rotations or at the end, the results would be the same? All this considering the 3.0 mana ticks are perfect, which means no filler is needed inside UI? If so, then the only meaningful variables are the rotations themselves. :eek: And thus, scenario 1 is the winner.

On the live letter it highlights that foul will cost 0mp to address mana issues on black mages. Doesn't this do absolutely nothing to the mana issue because the way theyre suggesting is transpose foul instead of letting us b3 foul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waliel

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.



Please someone tell me I'm wrong.

---

As far as i know F2 F2 Flare Flare is a pps gain at 4+ targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

snip

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilyth

snip

---

I want to let the readers of the thread know that Thela, Lilyth and I are basically discussing details of experimental method which amount to very small pps gains. I'm doing this because it's fun :D

Anyway, Lilyth, you just stated the issue with your premise. It's that you don't cast two spells in the UI cycle of your 3.X rotation (when you absolutely must).
Further, there's also the implicit assumption that the rotation is composed of a fraction of 3.X and 4.0 rotations, but it's an sum of (integer) multiples of each.
It might not look like it, but these will slightly skew your results (this part will also address what Thela said).

Consider now a dummy scenario in practice. Let's assume three players. One is only doing the 3.X rotation which, on average, lasts less than 30s.
The second is doing the 4.0 rotation which, on average, lasts longer than 30s.
The last is alternating between both with the scheme I said.

The first player will, at some point, invariably run into a situation where he won't have Foul up in UI. He'll use an arbitrary fill spell (say Blizzard, or Blizzard IV) that's worse than Foul. He'll then continue to use the 3.0 rotation.
The second will, at some point, get to a point where he has a Foul charged and another almost ticking in- he has to use his Foul immediately or lose one Foul. There's some pps cost to the whole rotation if he's forced to this in AF.
The last won't, at any point, run into these issues- he will always use exactly only two spells in UI, and whenever he does, those are the maximum pps available. Further, when he does this and he's forced to use B4, he gets the highest non-Foul pps possible.

The bottom line is: you want to optimise your UI cycles. You want to use exactly 2 spells on your UI cycle at all times, and the highest pps available. So you'll go T3>Foul whenever possible (3.X rotation) and then T3>B4 when you can't (4.0). This way, you spend the least amount of time in UI. Your calculations "mask" that your 4.0 version will spend more time in it's UI cycle.

If you were to repeat the three previous scenarios indefinitely and then stop them at random points in time, both 3.X-only and 4.0-only can be stopped at various poor situations- an AF where you had to Foul for 4.0, a B4 3.X- but the third is always on an "optimal" scenario for his given resources. This is not accounted for when people make pps calcs like that. That's why it's important to see what yields the most gain if you can T3>Foul, and what yields the best gain if you can't and must go T3>B4 (though you wouldn't waste your Umbral Hearts if you just B4'd, but it turns out that even if you considered that, 4.0 would be optimal in the no Foul scenario).

If you were to make a very long table with realistic rotations (trying to put Foul in there and not adding it at the end), the issue would show up.


(This one is a bit harder to digest...)

This is an optimisation problem. It's a maximisation problem (obviously) under a bunch of constraints pertaining to resources and timers and whatever.
For the case of BLM, you can rewrite this as a mutant, hybrid problem- you want to minimise your time in the UI cycle (so, 2 spells, because we're constrained to 2 spells) and maximise your potency in that UI cycle. There's another weird "constraint" that acts as some regularisation parameter that represents the AF cycle pps- think of this as the cost for not using B4, since the AF cycle of 6xF4+F has more pps than 4xF4+F (Firestarter reduces this difference, but let's just assume that we add the expected pps gain from AF as we're talking about lengthier times).
You're implicitly throwing some of these constraints off the window. You're not necessarily forcing two spells each UI on 3.X (which will eventually be a non-Foul spell since the expected duration of the 3.X is under 30s), and you're not accounting for the fact that you'll get messed up Fouls on the 4.0 one. These are punitive factors to each rotation.
That's why you need, at the start of each UI cycle, pick whatever option yields the highest expected pps for the next rotation- 3.X if you know you'll have Foul, 4.0 otherwise.
Obviously procs and mechanics can extend the 3.X, and it's not unreasonable to say "you can probably get away with doing 3.X almost indefinitely". In some cases, yes.
But nothing is going to improve the 4.0 situation in regards to Foul. Unless the stars align, you'll either need to Foul in AF, or double Foul in UI and drop T3.

I'm actually going to make a huuuge table that accounts for Foul positioning just to check, and upload the file somewhere.

EDIT: Wait a minute... 3.X wins out with Foul, but eventually you'll run out of Foul and be forced into the B4 filler... and that happens to be optimal for either case? D... did the devs foresee this? Was this planned? Are they actually really insightful? O.o

I doubt it but its nice to know ive been rolling with this correctly.

So basically if i got this down properly

Foul up - 3.0 > 4.0

Foul down for another 16s(?) 4.0 > 3.0

During leylines (convert)- 4.0 > 3.0

Without leylines - 3.0 > 4.0 so long as Foul counts as "down".

Did the rules of thunder change post 4.0? Or is it still hard -> proc

Proc -> proc at sub 9s

In having a hard time pinpointing where the new triple will serve its uses.

Sorry, I forgot I posted in this thread this morning. My numbers are fairly meaningless as of right now, since the changes will be coming soon. At most, the different in potency per second for roughly 3 min parses was only about 1.2 in either direction for 3.0 or 4.0 rotation based on your spell speed. More spell speed/reduced cast times do benefit the 4.0 rotation more and more. The concern I have still is with Thundercloud procs. With the 4.0 rotation, how safe is it going to be add that 4th spell, F4x3 + T3P while still being able to refresh AF? This was really never a problem in 3.0 rotation. It took us near the end of Alexander with 1500+ sps to safely get a third F4 before refreshing outside of LL timings, even if there was no point to it. Now that we have this much SpS, 3.0 rotation just has so much ease of use for T3P, and since we can't use T1 anymore to fish for procs, we are more likely to get thundercloud procs over the single use of T3.

I just think we will have to wait and see how the changes on Tuesday affect things. I am really hoping for a Fire 4 potency buff, that will cement the deal for 4.0 rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyeMinx

snip

---

To be fair, with Triple on a one minute cd we'll probably be ok. Especially if you offset Triple and Sharpcast, you can pretty much always use the TC procs now.
The only undesirable drawback of that is that now you really need to plan your openers (around a specific kill time, if possible) to try and align Sharpcast and Convert (or just Flare or something, hard to tell until I see the MP adjustments).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycofang

sniper

---

I want to say this is it, but wait for some more confirmation first x)

Wait, so 3.0 if foul is up and 4.0 if not is not up?

Edit: With the new changes coming, I am guessing we won't be left with 2400 mana anymore, and will Fire/Bliz 4 really change the situation we are in with 3.0?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

snip

---

I see the benefits of mixing 3.x and 4.0, i have two issues/questions:

1) if you came from 4.0 rotation and wanted to switch to 3.0, you'll be using B3 > Foul (won't have mana for anything else), > T3 > F3. If T3 doesnt get refunded before AF, you end up w/120mp on next B3, unable to cast anything. Isn't that just bad?

2) If you do 3.x rotation, get a T3P near the end and have to use it in AF (cant save for UI), then go B3, it's no longer worth hardcasting T3 since you just refreshed the DoT. You're forced to use B4 as a filler spell instead (Foul + B4 as the two filler spells). I guess this isn't really an issue, more like it forces you to do 4.0 rotation again.

I see 4.0 rotation being the primary rotation to use, with 3.x rotation being used in certain situations. Namely, being closed to losing Foul/having to use it in AF, or movement causing loss of F4. And even if I go to 3.x rotation, I'm sorta scared to get mana screwed (120MP)...?

After reading this and the other BLM thread I've started doing the thing where you only cast B4 in your opener and roughly every 90 seconds and am really enjoying it. In my experience, syncing your B4 casts with your triplecast/leylines CDs protects you from ever having to include B4 in your other cycles, although I guess really bad proc luck could do it.

Square really needs to buff umbral hearts if they want B4 to be cast every rotation like it used to be. Maybe they could halve cast times and/or give fire spells their UI3 mp cost rather than their default mp cost.

I'd also like to see umbral hearts substantially buff F2 somehow so that we ever had a reason to cast it after level 68.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

As far as i know F2 F2 Flare Flare is a pps gain at 4+ targets.

---

4 targets.
Just Flare: 241,4
F2 Flare: 233,8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamvng

snip

---

It's bothersome, yes. But this is much like getting a bad manatick when going 4.0 and not getting B4 refunded.
You can learn to somewhat mitigate this by committing the tick timings to memory, but every once in a while I mess it up and just feel bad about myself.

You're right about the TC proc situation. Proc management can (sorta) force you into such a situation.
I'm simplifying the analysis here and will release a new thread when the patch hits.
If you want to be rigorous, there's other things to consider. Say I just got a Balance as I'm mid UI cycle and will have it for 35ish seconds when I hit AF- I'm going to switch to the 4.0 rotation to get 6x Fire IV and Foul buffed by the balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrasper

snip

---

I need to see how much we gain. But between that and Foul costing 0 mp, we may end up with a very strong, 5xFire IV 3.X rotation that would trump the 4.0 one.
(Incidentally, you asked me in some other thread about how I like SMN visually- I actually really like Ruin 3's animations, and the laser-from-the-sky Deathflare. Adding to the fact that we have Bahamut, I'm quite content with it visually. I've always hated the egis, but I can just use a Carby now too, so x) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

It's bothersome, yes. But this is much like getting a bad manatick when going 4.0 and not getting B4 refunded.

---

I'm hoping they actually fix the mana tick situation fully in 4.05 so that we're always able to do 6xF4 if we want to without worrying about mana tick. 0 mana Foul fixes the 120MP situation also for 3.x rotation.

Let me summarize what I'm getting so far from this discussion: 4.0 rotation has more PPS if you do not include Foul (as the # of Fouls never changes in a battle). However, you want to use Foul in UI and not AF, which won't be possible at one point if you just use 4.0 rotation. In addition, if you can't cast 6xF4 after using B4, it is also a loss in PPS as you make it not worth using B4 anymore if you can't cast all 6 F4s. As such, you use 3.0 rotation insteadf of 4.0 in those 2 above case scenarios. And then we have the more niche scenarios like we discussed with procs or buffs. Am I right on that so far?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamvng

snip

---

Yes, that seems more or less to be it.
Ofc without patch notes, we can't be sure. If they alter potencies or have other changes (or even depending on how much MP we get), this can all change.
If the base MP is raised by like, 1000, the the 3.X rotation can now include 5xF4s, and will be better regardless of the scenario (and even have the perfect duration to have Foul up every UI, with Sharpcast and Triple offsetting each other's influence on rotation length and conveniently sharing a cd).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

If the base MP is raised by like, 1000, the the 3.X rotation can now include 5xF4s, and will be better regardless of the scenario (and even have the perfect duration to have Foul up every UI, with Sharpcast and Triple offsetting each other's influence on rotation length and conveniently sharing a cd).

---

If they let that 5xF4 be possible w/o Blizz 4... That would just be bad oversight and I would question how much they know about the BLM rotations...

I am disappointed in the omega gear for boots and gloves. Have to meld 6 materia 6 now just to get somewhere close where I was before with the Spell speed. /sigh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamvng

If they let that 5xF4 be possible w/o Blizz 4... That would just be bad oversight and I would question how much they know about the BLM rotations...

---

But that's already possible now? F4->F4->F1->F4->F4->F4->B3 is perfectly possible already while still having time to weave in procs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

But that's already possible now? F4->F4->F1->F4->F4->F4->B3 is perfectly possible already while still having time to weave in procs.

---

Kind of. The problem with it now is that after F4 F4 F1 F4 F4 you have exactly 2400 mana left. You could use F4 and transpose, but that would be a dps loss because of how the mana server ticks are. It is better if that happens to just B3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

But that's already possible now? F4->F4->F1->F4->F4->F4->B3 is perfectly possible already while still having time to weave in procs.

---

You need to Tranpose. You'll end up at exactly 2400 mana before the 5th Fire IV.
Transposing has a slew of issues- if you Foul > Thunder 3 > Fire 3, you may get screwed out of the last mana tick which will be a disaster.
If you B4 there, you may still get screwed out of the mana tick (not as disastrous as the previous case)- plus, doing this with a slow F3 is incredibly tight, and any movement will make you force to Tranpose again (and then your AF cycle is thrown into complete disarray) or lose UI and Enochian.
All of these cases are horrid pps losses. At absolute best, it all aligns perfectly and even then you only get like 1 pps for your trouble. Absolutely not worth the risk.

Hi, I apologize if this was already mentioned somewhere but did not want to make a thread about this. I wanted to know, what are your thoughts on the upcoming changes? These changes feel like band-aid changes that does not really address everything. Only addressing what they think and feel is appropriate, so I am starting to question if SE understands what is wrong with BLM. Do you think we'll be okay with these changes coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marianno

Hi, I apologize if this was already mentioned somewhere but did not want to make a thread about this. I wanted to know, what are your thoughts on the upcoming changes? These changes feel like band-aid changes that does not really address everything. Only addressing what they think and feel is appropriate, so I am starting to question if SE understands what is wrong with BLM. Do you think we'll be okay with these changes coming?

---

I don't want to comment on it until I see the patch notes. I need to see if they're also going with potency adjustments.
That said, a buff is a buff, and even if only these preliminary changes go through, optimally played BLM will become quite complex (more than it was in HW), which I definitely appreciate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marianno

snip

---

I'm curious about what specifically they are going to change with the "MP adjustments". They mentioned 0MP Foul and I hope that isn't it, because it would not fix the mana tick issues we are having.

Assuming mana tick issues will be completely resolved and we can do our normal rotations regardless of whether we get a mana tick or not, I think the changes are good. They may not put us up with SAMs, but good BLMs should at least beat RDMs now and rival maybe MNKs. Whether that's good enough to warrant the caster spot in groups (over RDM), I don't know. The reduction of cast time from 3s to 2.8s essentially reverts the potency nerf we got when looking at PPS (potency per second). On top of that, it loosens the rotation a little and actually makes it possible to fit a proc in the 6xF4 rotation. Again the mana tick issues being resolved also technically boosts our DPS, as our PPS won't get hammered if we don't get that mana tick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamvng

snip.

---

Prolly gonna buff our base mana value. The amount has a lot of bearing on our rotation though.
The cast time buff is generally better than just potency (easier to turrent, adjust to mechanics, better AF leniency), but it does come with a significant disadvantage; Triple yields less of a dps gain.
But maybe this is their plan- pushing Triple away from a burst tool and more into a mobility tool.

Li'l 50 here hoping "MP adjustments" means I can use T3 after B3 without having to wait for a tick.

[QUOTE=jamvng;4308202]
snip

I am still unsure as the potency nerf of F4/B4 in the first place. I agree, I too hope that the changes at least help to alleviate some the stress of the rotation because waiting mana ticks are annoying. I am also waiting until the patch notes come out to see everything ...sigh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

You need to Tranpose. You'll end up at exactly 2400 mana before the 5th Fire IV.
Transposing has a slew of issues- if you Foul > Thunder 3 > Fire 3, you may get screwed out of the last mana tick which will be a disaster.
If you B4 there, you may still get screwed out of the mana tick (not as disastrous as the previous case)- plus, doing this with a slow F3 is incredibly tight, and any movement will make you force to Tranpose again (and then your AF cycle is thrown into complete disarray) or lose UI and Enochian.
All of these cases are horrid pps losses. At absolute best, it all aligns perfectly and even then you only get like 1 pps for your trouble. Absolutely not worth the risk.

---

Hm, i could have sworn i was doing 5xF4 several times without transposing (and without umbral heart) but maybe my memory is fuzzy :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

Hm, i could have sworn i was doing 5xF4 several times without transposing (and without umbral heart) but maybe my memory is fuzzy :)

---

600(F3)+2400X5(F4x5)+2880(F1) = 15480 (your max MP). Youd have to transpose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thela

Hm, i could have sworn i was doing 5xF4 several times without transposing (and without umbral heart) but maybe my memory is fuzzy :)

---

Then your memory is fuzzy because without convert thrown in there 5 F4s require a transpose.

Hey, sorry being a little late but work is being a mess lately!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

Anyway, Lilyth, you just stated the issue with your premise. It's that you don't cast two spells in the UI cycle of your 3.X rotation (when you absolutely must).

---

Actually I was simply considering a perfect mana tick scenario for the person using the 3.0 rotation exclusively, in which case a single spell (thunder III) is already enough to get full mana. I know that in your proposed priority system you'll always have foul up for that part which would ignore the mana tic problem, but that's really besides the point. More on that later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

Consider now a dummy scenario in practice. Let's assume three players. One is only doing the 3.X rotation which, on average, lasts less than 30s.
The first player will, at some point, invariably run into a situation where he won't have Foul up in UI. He'll use an arbitrary fill spell (say Blizzard, or Blizzard IV) that's worse than Foul. He'll then continue to use the 3.0 rotation.

---

In a real scenario, yes. But we're comparing the raw potencies of a perfect executed 3.0 rotation, which is 139,305708 PPS. No Blizzard used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

The second will, at some point, get to a point where he has a Foul charged and another almost ticking in- he has to use his Foul immediately or lose one Foul. There's some pps cost to the whole rotation if he's forced to this in AF.

---

This is a non issue, honestly. Using only the 4.0 rotation will indeed lead you to this situation. But now with Triple Cast on 60 secs CD, you'll have either Sharpcast or Triple cast up for every single AF cycle while still saving Swiftcast for movement. Not to mention with the new F4 cast time, which pretty much gives us extra 1.2 secs on our AF cycle assuming 6 FIVs, and the 0 Foul mana cost, you'll have more than enough time to fit Foul into AF or even two Fouls into UI if you time it well. But again, that is besides that point and you will see why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

The last won't, at any point, run into these issues- he will always use exactly only two spells in UI, and whenever he does, those are the maximum pps available. Further, when he does this and he's forced to use B4, he gets the highest non-Foul pps possible.

The bottom line is: you want to optimise your UI cycles. You want to use exactly 2 spells on your UI cycle at all times, and the highest pps available. So you'll go T3>Foul whenever possible (3.X rotation) and then T3>B4 when you can't (4.0). This way, you spend the least amount of time in UI. Your calculations "mask" that your 4.0 version will spend more time in it's UI cycle.

If you were to repeat the three previous scenarios indefinitely and then stop them at random points in time, both 3.X-only and 4.0-only can be stopped at various poor situations- an AF where you had to Foul for 4.0, a B4 3.X- but the third is always on an "optimal" scenario for his given resources. This is not accounted for when people make pps calcs like that. That's why it's important to see what yields the most gain if you can T3>Foul, and what yields the best gain if you can't and must go T3>B4 (though you wouldn't waste your Umbral Hearts if you just B4'd, but it turns out that even if you considered that, 4.0 would be optimal in the no Foul scenario).

---

So here's the important part: everything you just said is already being taken into account. Our calculations have given us 139,305708 PPS which is a number we reached by doing the 3.0 rotation with no filler spell under UI, which is the perfect scenario. What I want you to understand is that, regardless of where you place foul, the final number is the same. And that's what my examples were all about.

A) F4-F4-F1-F4-F4-B3-FOUL-T3-F3

B) F4-F4-FOUL-F1-F4-F4-B3-T3-F3

C) F4-F4-F1-F4-F4-B3-T3-F3-FOUL

These all have the same PPS. We're simply adding potencies since the duration is the same. We could even do something like:

D) F4-F4-F1-F4-F4-B3-T3-F3-F4-F4-F1-F4-F4-B3-T3-F3-FOUL-FOUL

Which is the same as doing A, B or C twice.

I understand how convinient it is to use Foul under UI for 3.0 and 4.0. But this is only for convenience sake. Math doesn't care about that. If you put Foul in the middle of your AF or in the middle of your UI or wherever you want, the end result is the exact same, assuming you can still perform the entire rotation normally.

Ok, but where does this lead us? We don't want this ideal stuff, we want rotations that will work for us on realistic scenarios, right? Yes! So let's get real. If you understand that placing foul whenever doesn't change the end result, we can finally look at realistic scenarios. Your priority suggestion does make a lot of sense. You'll always have foul on UI which is convinient, and I'd definitely go for that too... except it is not optimal PPS.

Look, 3.0(with foul) + 4.0(with foul) does yield a higher PPS than only 4.0 (with foul) over and over again. But you know what you are forgetting? By doing only 4.0 on a realistic level, you will get 4.0 with two fouls and THAT'S where 4.0 wins. 4.0 with two fouls is a huuuuuge PPS gain over 3.0 with a single foul. And how do you gain this double-foul scenario? By repeating the 4.0 rotation. The only argument against it that I can think of is "but this will make your rotation even more tight by fitting in a second foul". And yes that's true. But I'll take it. Bacause it's better. With the new Triplecast CD, that's easily doable. And it is the optimal way to play :D

This all look great and all but that's not even the point I'm really trying to make. I'm only taking on a more realistic approach to help you see why 4.0 is superior after the update. But the real bottom line is: Foul is a constant. Both rotations have it, equally (because it's on a 30 seconds timer for both), so it doesn't affect the comparison by ignoring it. Foul is as much of a factor as Enochian. If 4.0 is better without Foul, 4.0 will be better with Foul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

If you were to make a very long table with realistic rotations (trying to put Foul in there and not adding it at the end), the issue would show up.

---

I'd be all for that, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

That's why you need, at the start of each UI cycle, pick whatever option yields the highest expected pps for the next rotation- 3.X if you know you'll have Foul, 4.0 otherwise.
Obviously procs and mechanics can extend the 3.X, and it's not unreasonable to say "you can probably get away with doing 3.X almost indefinitely". In some cases, yes.
But nothing is going to improve the 4.0 situation in regards to Foul. Unless the stars align, you'll either need to Foul in AF, or double Foul in UI and drop T3.

---

What you said is true If Foul wasn't a constant. But it is. I can't reinforce this enough XD. The only downside of 4.0 is that it is tighter. You might, possibly, eventually.... have to drop something on 4.0 because 3.0 which has much more "free" time. But as our SS increases, and accounting for Sharpcast and Triplecast which (now) both have ridiculously low recast times, I strongly believe it's better to stick to the strongest PPS-wise rotation instead of the "easiest" one.

Little PS regarding the MP adjustments: these adjustments might indeed change things. If it will make possible to cast 5 FIVs without needing BIV at all, then that would be a whole different story. We'll have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilyth

Little PS regarding the MP adjustments: these adjustments might indeed change things. If it will make possible to cast 5 FIVs without needing BIV at all, then that would be a whole different story. We'll have to wait and see.

---

If they increase base MP to allow for 5 F4s without B4, that would also allow 4.0 rotation to have 7 F4s I'm pretty sure. It goes both ways. If they increase base MP by 360, that would eliminate the mana tick issue with 6xF4 rotation. Previously with a bad mana tick, 6xF4 would leave us with 0MP, adding 360 would allow us to B3 and Foul (0MP). On the flipside, you would also be able to 5xF4 w/o B4 WITH full mana, however you would have a mana tick issue afterward still, forcing you to do 4xF4 on the next rotation.

I'm really interested to see how they fix the MP, we'll find out tonight/tomorrow...

RE:rotation analysis
Great insight here. I do love that us getting a Sharpcast or Triplecast every AF will be extremely convenient to fit procs in.

While I like the concept of UH, I think that the reason for using them in ST scenario is situational at best atm, in most movement heavy situations it's better off ignoring them altogether.
I find the idea of Umbral hearts to be very close to the backdraft mechanic of Warlocks from wow (incidentally I think that the ley line teleport is similar to demonic circle) however backdraft also increased the speed of your next 3 casts, so I wonder if they shouldn't make so that UH gives you also the extra speed in addition to the current effect (although that might be OP I'm not sure)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

While I like the concept of UH, I think that the reason for using them in ST scenario is situational at best atm, in most movement heavy situations it's better off ignoring them altogether.
I find the idea of Umbral hearts to be very close to the backdraft mechanic of Warlocks from wow (incidentally I think that the ley line teleport is similar to demonic circle) however backdraft also increased the speed of your next 3 casts, so I wonder if they shouldn't make so that UH gives you also the extra speed in addition to the current effect (although that might be OP I'm not sure)

---

UH still gives the higher DPS and Triplecast/Swiftcast/Sharpcast will help with movement. It will only improve as we get more SpS.

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this but where should I focus with my materia? Is it still ss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilyth

Actually I was simply considering a perfect mana tick scenario for the person using the 3.0 rotation exclusively(...)
B) F4-F4-FOUL-F1-F4-F4-B3-T3-F3

---

So, the problem is that I had been experimenting with 4.0 for a long time when I wrote that.

First, I believe this "no filler thing" doesn't work in practice. Half the time you won't get a mana refund, especially with the new cast time.
Second, doing B3>Foul>Foul>T3>B4>F3 is also incredibly tight (like, half a second leeway tight) in 4.0, and in practice this would cause you to drop UI sometimes, until we get more spell speed. This is why I didn't consider Double Foul.
If you Doulbe Foul, you're better off going 3.0 after, because it really is painfully tight to do an UI cycle like this with B4.

This all stems from an issue I (and apparently, more people have) that if you F/F3/B3 at the last second, the game freaks out and you lose Enochian (it's incredibly frustrating).

Also, while what you posted surely works for 3.0, what if your Foul falls onto your AF cycle in 4.0?
Say you're on UI and a mechanic happens. You had to move a step and there's no way in hell you're going to Foul now and risk losing UI.
Do you go AF and Foul there? Do you blizzard to keep UI going? This kind of junk happens a bit in practice.

Now, I've been checking 4.05 numbers, and it seems that the 4.0 rotation will be very close to lasting 30 seconds, so none of this issues will bother us.
That said, thank you very much for taking time to discuss this. It's so important having someone to talk to for a sanity check sometimes.

EDIT: I guess with Triple we can hecaFireIV more easily, but still, 1 pps...? Come on SE... at least make it like... 5% stronger...
DOUBLE EDIT: I'll do a cumulative pps thing with Triple and Sharpcast account for and see how that goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saya_Endou

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this but where should I focus with my materia? Is it still ss?

---

I think the stat weights point to SpS>DH>CRIT>DET

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galvuu

Second, doing B3>Foul>Foul>T3>B4>F3 is also incredibly tight (like, half a second leeway tight) in 4.0, and in practice this would cause you to drop UI sometimes, until we get more spell speed. This is why I didn't consider Double Foul.
If you Doulbe Foul, you're better off going 3.0 after, because it really is painfully tight to do an UI cycle like this with B4.

---

Isn't the argument that you double Foul and put a Foul during AF (because total potency doesn't change no matter where you put it in rotation) and that we can do F4x3 + Foul + Fire1 with the new cast times and using either Sharpcast or Triplecast?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamvng

Isn't the argument that you double Foul and put a Foul during AF (because total potency doesn't change no matter where you put it in rotation) and that we can do F4x3 + Foul + Fire1 with the new cast times and using either Sharpcast or Triplecast?

---

For the new rotation, that yields 13.4 total cast time, so you can't do that (you drop AF).
But I was talking about 4.0 there, not 4.05 qq
I was asking if people who used this method to calculate the pps of the 3.0 VS 4.0 rotations (not 4.05) had considered the possibility of a misplaced Foul.

On 4.05, this is a non issue because the duration of your rotation is almost 30 seconds- especially if you can penta Fire IV a 3.0 rotation every now and then.

(I should remind everyone that the difference between both is just a tidbit over 1% dps. This is utterly insignificant in practice. How many of your DHs/Crits fall on Fouls/Fire IVs matter much more than this. Where in a region where rng variance of such factors yields a higher influence)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamvng

UH still gives the higher DPS and Triplecast/Swiftcast/Sharpcast will help with movement. It will only improve as we get more SpS.

---

my point is that the reason to be for UH in ST is to give us 6 F4, but that is limited by mechanics and movements hence why i feel that they should give something more for us to really like using B4 (Unless they don't expect us to use B4 every rotation but in specific moments which is something I think it's entirely possible)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lilyth

snip

---

I think what you're missing here is not that Foul is good, but that Blizzard 4 is bad. Or rather, that Blizzard 4 is the third best thing for a BLM to cast in their umbral cycle, while Thunder 3 is second best and Foul is best. (Arguably T3 is better if you take into account expected total potency from the overall ~57% chance of a thundercloud proc which has its own chance etc etc)

Foul adds the same potency/sec to every rotation, even one that exclusively uses Fire 1, Enochian, and Transpose. But what Galvuu discovered is that Foul has a second, subtler advantage: it allows us to NOT cast Blizzard 4, which we used to have no real alternative to in every umbral cycle. Now, B4 is a sometimes food: we are frequently better off without it, because it bloats our rotation without necessarily strengthening it.

Blizzard 4 is like an 8.4s spell for 1196 total potency. That is worse pps than F4, T3, and Foul. So why cast it unless we have to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrinus

I think what you're missing here is not that Foul is good, but that Blizzard 4 is bad. Or rather, that Blizzard 4 is the third best thing for a BLM to cast in their umbral cycle, while Thunder 3 is second best and Foul is best. (Arguably T3 is better if you take into account expected total potency from the overall ~57% chance of a thundercloud proc which has its own chance etc etc)

---

The two extra FireIVs you get make the BlizzIV worth casting.