Black Mage Sanctuary - A Guide to DPS

[Galvuu]

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.

[jamvng]

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.

[Galvuu]

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.

[Hasrat]

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

[Marianno]

[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...

[Thela]

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

[jamvng]

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

[Ferrasper]

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.

[Lilyth]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[jamvng]

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.