So with all of this consolidation Why do we still have 4 different Fires?

So, we all knew SE was going to consolidate and remove skills that weren't that useful, and some of those changes made sense. Upgrading the Thunder Spell, having your Warrior abilities swap depending on the stance, Making the Ninja Poisons a trait. But others didn't make sense, We still have Cure III; while it has its purpose, it was far too niche for most content, they got rid of Miasma II, okay not so bad, but you add Miasma III?, like what? But why on BLM do we still have 4 different versions of Fire and Blizzard. There was no way of consolidating any of those? like really?

PS: if you respond, please don't state the obvious "they do different things" I'm sure we are all away are of that. My question is mostly if you were adjusting the battle system why ot adjust that aspect as well.

They do different things, therefore no reason to merge them.

The whole point of the consolidation is merging skills that do the same thing, not merging skills that share the same name.

Their purposes are all too different to stack them. Would you rather lose fire 1 when it turns into fire 3 and be stuck with a really long cast time as your only damage? As in, you move, you gotta recast from the start. 4s will never be consolidated because they're enochian dependent and require the astral/umbral buffs to even use under enochian. 2s are our aoe so that's that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alimdia

They do different things, therefore no reason to merge them.

The whole point of the consolidation is merging skills that do the same thing, not merging skills that share the same name.

---

This is the exact reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

PS: if you respond, please don't state the obvious "they do different things" I'm sure we are all away are of that. My question is mostly if you were adjusting the battle system why ot adjust that aspect as well.

---

So what would you do? Rename them? Have them all do the same thing but have to add new buttons that would handle aoe or single target? What would be the net gain?

The AOE ones should be renamed with the -ga suffix

If you look at Ruin Mastery it says, "Grants a 15% chance that Ruin and Ruin III are upgraded to Ruin IV after a pet uses spell or weaponskill." What stopped them from making Fire change to Fire III in the event you got a Firestarter proc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus_Cassius

The AOE ones should be renamed with the -ga suffix

---

In 1.X they were labeled as Fire/Blizzard/Thunder/ra/ga but the development team thought that was too confusing for players new to Final Fantasy in general, or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramina

So what would you do? Rename them? Have them all do the same thing but have to add new buttons that would handle aoe or single target? What would be the net gain?

---

I'll take a stab at that...

If it were up to me? I'd consolidate all the fire ranks except for 2 into one spell that scaled/improved with level. Cast time would stay at the default Fire I cast time. Fire II would be renamed (maybe Blaze?). The new consolidated Fire spell would become Fire IV automatically when its proper conditions were met.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahn

If you look at Ruin Mastery it says, "Grants a 15% chance that Ruin and Ruin III are upgraded to Ruin IV after a pet uses spell or weaponskill." What stopped them from making Fire change to Fire III in the event you got a Firestarter proc?



In 1.X they were labeled as Fire/Blizzard/Thunder/ra/ga but the development team thought that was too confusing for players new to Final Fantasy in general, or something.

---

fire I , single, fire II aoe, Fire III , single, is that is confusing.

aoe should have the ga, ra, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

PS: if you respond, please don't state the obvious "they do different things" I'm sure we are all away are of that. My question is mostly if you were adjusting the battle system why ot adjust that aspect as well.

---

That is the answer though, what do you expect? have fire I magically turn into fire III on insta proc? but you still need fire III hardcast to change umbrals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahn

In 1.X they were labeled as Fire/Blizzard/Thunder/ra/ga but the development team thought that was too confusing for players new to Final Fantasy in general, or something.

---

Yeah. Instead we have Fire III/Blizzard III only BLMs because it makes sense that spells with the same name do the same thing and those with higher numbers attached are always stronger and better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus_Cassius

The AOE ones should be renamed with the -ga suffix

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahn

If you look at Ruin Mastery it says, "Grants a 15% chance that Ruin and Ruin III are upgraded to Ruin IV after a pet uses spell or weaponskill." What stopped them from making Fire change to Fire III in the event you got a Firestarter proc?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicodemus_Mercy

If it were up to me? I'd consolidate all the fire ranks except for 2 into one spell that scaled/improved with level. Cast time would stay at the default Fire I cast time. Fire II would be renamed (maybe Blaze?). The new consolidated Fire spell would become Fire IV automatically when its proper conditions were met.

---

Thank you to those people who understood the reasoning for this post, to the majority of the rest of the comments, like really? I guess 1+1=3 doesn't it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamada

fire I , single, fire II aoe, Fire III , single, is that is confusing.

aoe should have the ga, ra, etc

---

This is only in the english localisation

Feuer - ファイア : single
Feura - ファイラ : AoE
Feuga - ファイガ : single and give you max astral fire
Feuka - ファイジャ : single that need enochial and astral fire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

Thank you to those people who understood the reasoning for this post, to the majority of the rest of the comments, like really? I guess 1+1=3 doesn't it.

---

There are strategic reasons to not use fire 3 at every opportunity or right when a proc happens.

It seems a bit unfair that you ask a question you know the answer to and then tell people the answer that you already acknowledge as being the answer can't be the answer we give.

The problem with BLM in Heavensward was not an overabundance of abilities. It was too many restrictive timers to keep track of. Keeping Enochian on long enough for the natural recast to refresh takes an ability to juggle a lot of timers in your head, especially if a fight requires any movement that is not going to be expected and planned for 100% of the time. This created a large gap in ability for the players who were capable of this and the players who weren't. The changes to BLM in Stormblood are in keeping with the mindset of reducing the things you need to keep track of in hopes of raising the minimum an average player can do.

I suppose you could argue that reducing the number of fire spells would do that, but it wouldn't make the job easier unless it was also accompanied with the Enochian changes.

You say "Don't say they do different things!" But that is exactly what they do. For whm Stone 2 is a direct functional upgrade from Stone 1. Once you have 2 there is no reason whatsoever to use one. Ergo replacing 1 with 2 at the appropriate level makes sense.

Fire 2 is a functionally different spell than Fire 1. Replacing Fire 1 with Fire 2 would make no sense unless they change the function of Fire 2. Then what? Add a new spell to fill the function gap you just created? Why? a misguided sense of semantics? It's extra work for no purpose.

But hey, why not replace Fire 1 with Fire 3? Again, they serve different functions, not even considering the different resource costs or potencies they both react differently with core BLM mechanics, Fire 1 gives you one stack of astral fire or removes all stacks of umbral ice. Fire 3 removes all stacks of umbral ice if you have them AND gives you THREE stacks of astral fire. So unless they want to change core mechanics or add more abilities to accommodate this pointless change there is no reason to replace 1 with 3.

Let's jump over to SMN since it is seeing some sweeping changes to core abilities. Right now they have three/four dots they can stack on an enemy all with different durations. They also have a fair amount of oGCD abilities they can use between spells and a low potency spell they can spam in between keeping dots up. To expand the abilities for this class they either need to keep adding dots, keep adding things to do between dots or change something else.

What they opted to do is reduce the number of dots to manage by 1, but give them increasing durations and overall potencies. And then also increase the potency of one of their filler spells to accommodate. Regardless of the salt that is readily available in SMN threads, the core mechanics of SMN haven't changed much from the current "apply dots, cast filler spells, reapply dots." It's just the dots will be slightly easier to manage and the filler spells have had some balancing tweaks done.

So you are asking why they aren't completely reworking all the BLM spells by either neutering BLM functionality or creating a bunch of new abilities to do what these abilities already do? I suppose I'd have to counter with why the heck would they?

While I get keeping some of them separate, I don't see why they didn't change:

Fire I > Fire IV while under Enochian and making Fire IV refresh AF. BLM already has MP costs that change, and this seems like a needless complication to keep around considering other changes. I'm really not sure the 1 maaaybe 2 fires that go off in a single rotation and the Firestarter proc that might come from them are reason enough to keep Fire I and Fire IV separate, and for that matter, to keep firestarter. Fire III would also be pretty easy to eliminate, if they made firestarter instead apply AF3 if fire was cast from UI3 and up the potency randomly as done with scathe. Then Fire would become Fire III at about 42, and Fire IV at 60.

Blizzard I > Blizzard III, At level 60 or 70, is there ever a time you will use blizzard I? I'm under the impression you might IF you got a thundercloud proc and don't want to overwrite a pretty fresh thunder, but other than that not so far as I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahn

If you look at Ruin Mastery it says, "Grants a 15% chance that Ruin and Ruin III are upgraded to Ruin IV after a pet uses spell or weaponskill." What stopped them from making Fire change to Fire III in the event you got a Firestarter proc?

---

I would have loved to have been able to say, "because there might be a reason to hold onto that proc!" Though, those reasons are far and few between, especially now that AF/UI have been extended yet again.

That said, changing it over during a Firestarter alone wouldn't actually save you a key. You still need F3 to enter immediately into AF3 after a UI phase. It would be like making the current Thunder I and II change into the III on Thundercloud. It would nullify the chance of mis-clicks, but it wouldn't save you any keys, since Thunder II and III still have separate rotational usage without the procs.

The real question ends up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lyndwyrm

While I get keeping some of them separate, I don't see why they didn't change:

Fire > Fire IV (allowing IV to refresh AF)
Blizzard I > Blizzard III

---

To which I can only guess, "because they thought BLM would be too simple then?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahn

If you look at Ruin Mastery it says, "Grants a 15% chance that Ruin and Ruin III are upgraded to Ruin IV after a pet uses spell or weaponskill." What stopped them from making Fire change to Fire III in the event you got a Firestarter proc?

---

Because you're casting normal F3 more often than using Firestarters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

To which I can only guess, "because they thought BLM would be too simple then?"

---

I doubt Squenix wants BLM to go back to being a "one button job". I wish Firestarter would proc off F4, though.

I'd favor renaming, but I don't like using -ga just for AoE. It's still not very clear that way. I'd rather stick with the old -ra -ga -ja for base spells, and AoE can have their own unique names. Firaga still sounds like just a better Fire spell. There's too little historical precedent for that format, when most older entries, most spells could be single/AoE as needed (but also most older entries typically required some strategy due to actual elemental resistance/absorption, etc).

Point is, give like spells like names. Fire/Firaga sorta sounds nice, but AoE still has "Fir(e)" in it. I'd rather see it have any other name. Blaze. Inferno. Explosion. Don't care. But make it clear as day that it has a different purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

Snip

---

Because if you merge them you already dumb down the class too much. I'd rather this game not become WoW that is only about pressing 1-1-1-1-1-1(proc)-2-3 and repeat. It would be boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlphaSonic

Because if you merge them you already dumb down the class too much. I'd rather this game not become WoW that is only about pressing 1-1-1-1-1-1(proc)-2-3 and repeat. It would be boring.

---

Proc based combat is a lot more fun than the 1-2-3, 1-2-3 spam that most DPS roles have currently in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valinis

Proc based combat is a lot more fun than the 1-2-3, 1-2-3 spam that most DPS roles have currently in my opinion.

---

Well that's why you have WoW. If you like that kind of playstyle you can play WoW, I'd rather perform rotations that keep me busy while dealing mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlphaSonic

Well that's why you have WoW. If you like that kind of playstyle you can play WoW, I'd rather perform rotations that keep me busy while dealing mechanics.

---

What if I don't like the other aspects of WoW? You have an opinion and so do I. Don't tell me to leave just because you don't agree with me.

cuz they have different effects.....no but seriously....they do different things >.>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

PS: if you respond, please don't state the obvious "they do different things" I'm sure we are all away are of that. My question is mostly if you were adjusting the battle system why ot adjust that aspect as well.

---

Well what would you rename them to? or change about them?
They all do different things and you can't just merge Fire with Fire IV (since Fire IV costs less MP than Fire and does more damage. It just doesn't give you Astral, so you still have to use Fire, which has a chance to proc Firestarter for a free Fire III cast, which will now be safe to use during Astral phase since Enochian will no longer have a timer).

Blizzard II should have been substituted with a better skill IMO.

Freeze is better than Blizzard II... hell, Freeze is going to be (potency-wise) better than Fire II in Stormblood (Fire II is being changed to 80 Potency, while Freeze remains at 100 Potency. I'm not using my bad math powers to guess what Fire II Astral III potency is). Of course, no one will use Freeze at level 50-70.

they should go the anime/manga naming way and just flat out name em by descriptive means lol. fire = "the spell you use to keep astral up and as filler aka skafa" fire 2 "spell you use to hit alot of enemies at once, before you use flare (saebuf!)" Fire 3 "spell you open with, but also the spell you use after a proc for said spell (ObaP =*opener but also procs*)" and fire 3 "the big daddy damage spell that you cast while keeping enochian up and under astral fire. (PEWPEWPEW!)" =D This is why i am not even allowed to name FC :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valinis

What if I don't like the other aspects of WoW? You have an opinion and so do I. Don't tell me to leave just because you don't agree with me.

---

I haven't told you to leave. You've just assumed that. I've told you that if you prefer that playstyle you can play it in WoW. We don't need 2 games with the same playstyle. I'm not sorry you felt attacked.

They're not for the same thing like all the Stones or Malefics are.

Fire 1 is basic fire attack
Fire 2 is aoe
Fire 3 is proc nuke attack and astral fire generator
Fire 4 is strong fire attack.

Now you could argue for them to have fire 1 change to fire 4 when enochian is active, and same with blizzard 1 and 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Averax

Now you could argue for them to have fire 1 change to fire 4 when enochian is active, and same with blizzard 1 and 4.

---

You could, but that's if you take the MP cost out of the mix. Fire does less damage, costs more MP, grants Astral Fire and has a chance to proc Firestarter for a free Fire III cast. Fire IV does more damage, costs less MP and doesn't grant Astral Fire, nor procs Firestarter. Blizzard I'm unsure about... Blizzard costs less MP and just grants Umbral Ice, whereas Blizzard IV costs more MP and grants Umbral Hearts.

If anything, they should have consolidated Fire IV and Blizzard IV into the same button.

I don't really have a problem with the fire spells because they all do something different. However, it is extremely lackluster to always be spamming one element over and over and over. Looks like RDM is going to fix that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferth

Post

---

I think the logistics of my question were a bit lost on you. Now I am not saying you don't have a point, but the main notion was to make the game play easier for players of all levels... how many times have you encountered an Ice Mage or someone who spams Fire III?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestama

post

---

Plenty of people have already expressed sentiments they were expecting with the upcoming job changes, as well as what would of made sense, without changing BLM core design or gameplay. Anyone who automatically states "they do different things" is catering to the devs lack of imagination and ingenuity, that they were able to place into other jobs, some even too much.

It's not really a lack of imagination, but rather "why fix what isn't broken?" Nothing happened to the Fire spells because what can SE do? They could easily rework the Thunder spells because all they had going for them was 'does more damage and all have a chance to proc' (so now odd numbered Thunders are single target and even numbered Thunders are AoE). Fire, however? They all have something specific going for them. They're not like Stone, Bio and Malefic, which all just do more damage.

You can't make Fire become Fire IV, as that would effectively make them a level 50 BLM at level 70... and potentially OP (SE would need to lower Fire IV's potency to either match, or do less than Fire III).

BLM is arguably the easiest Job to play at 50 and with these new changes coming in SB, even easier to handle (since you now only need to keep Astral and Umbral up and not worry about Enochian falling off) at 60 and 70. If you encounter a player who spams Tier III spells over and over again, then you just need to teach them how to play the Job optimally. If they resort to "my sub my way" or ignore you completely, then boot them. They clearly don't want to learn how to play an easy to learn Job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestama

You could, but that's if you take the MP cost out of the mix.

---

Why does MP cost matter at all? Current spells already adjust cost depending on astral/umbral. Would it be so far out to have this hypothetical "upgrading Fire/FireIV" adjust itself similarly?

Fire IV has already lost some potency (280 now, 260 in SB) due to the changes SE is making for BLM. If they made it so that you can effectively go back to doing a level 50 rotation, then SE would need to lower the potency further (lower than Fire III's 240), as well as increase the MP cost and lower the cast to match Fire's MP cost and cast time. That is a massive nerf to BLM.

Fire at level 70: 1440MP, 180 Potency, 2.42 Cast
Fire IV at level 70: 1200MP, 260 Potency, 2.91 Cast

That doesn't really explain why they need to adjust anything? Idk, not 60, so maybe I'm missing something. But MP cost already adjusts as needed, as well as cast time of F3/B3 under UI3/AF3.

If they're just talking about adjusting MP/cast time under buff, how would that really be so difficult, and in need of any nerf?

Fire at level 70 base stats: 1440MP, 180 Potency, 2.42 Cast
Fire at level 70 with Eno active: 1200MP, 260 Potency, 2.91 Cast

But like I said, admittedly I'm not well versed for this debate. Just not quite understanding why "they have different stats" means devs couldn't swap them out under buff effect.

Enochian never wears off unless you let Astral and/or Umbral fall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

I think the logistics of my question were a bit lost on you.

---

This is entirely possible.

Quote:

---

Now I am not saying you don't have a point, but the main notion was to make the game play easier for players of all levels... how many times have you encountered an Ice Mage or someone who spams Fire III?

---

Though, personally it has been a really long time since I've encountered someone who was so clueless about the job as to be casting only Fire 3 or only Ice spells. I certainly can't imagine anyone playing that way for long without a certain element of willfullness not to do it right, at which point why should they be catered to? Yeah, it sucks for the people they play with, but if people have attempted to help them play more effectively and they've chosen not to making the class easier isn't going to make them any less obstinant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eloah

I think the logistics of my question were a bit lost on you. Now I am not saying you don't have a point, but the main notion was to make the game play easier for players of all levels... how many times have you encountered an Ice Mage or someone who spams Fire III?

---

Literally never. But it is a good go-to strawman argument. Aside from preemptively poo-poo'ing the obvious answer, it would require changing how each of those Fire spells work as people have already said.

I don't get the request for a consolidated fire spell, this is worse than 50 BLM, a consolidated fire would devolve into

Quote:

---

fire 4 - fire 4 - fire 4 - fire 4 - bliz 4 - thunder 3 - fire 4 - fire 4 - fire 4 - fire 4 - bliz 4 - thunder 3 - fire 4 - fire 4 - fire 4 - fire 4 - bliz 4 - thunder 3 - fire 4 - fire 4 - fire 4 - fire 4 - bliz 4 - thunder 3

---

You can say that the current rotation isn't hard, but at lest with fire 4 not touching astral fire, fire 1 being the cheaper astral fire refresh and fire 3 being the choice for procs and initial AF application combat can be a bit more complex than just spending the entire battle hitting one button.

You could reassign the current effects to new skills, but then you're not accomplishing a consolidation, you're basically renaming them.

The only sort of consolidation I would have done with regard to BLM is to just replace Fire/Blizzard 1 with Fire/Blizzard 4 while Enochian is up, and actually allow those spells to affect Astral/Umbral like their tier 1 counterparts would.

Yes, it would simplify the rotation and make BLM more powerful on account of never having to use Fire 1 just to maintain Astral during Enochian, but that's really about all you could do that I can think of to consolidate the spells without drastically changing their effects.