Black magic...kinda sucks

[Menriq]

If there are "nuances of the job you aren't going to get until you hit 70" (which by the way I have)...then when you say as far as you have gotten is lvl 30 how would you know how right or wrong I am? Because everyone else is saying so? As for the victim card, I went 7 pages before I corrected anyone, but because I have now suddenly I am playing the victim because I got tired of everyone reffering me to a he? Right...or is it because the implication is that talking to a woman as so many of you have is somehow worse then talking to a guy, and now that I revealed I am a woman you are trying to cover your arse?

If your argument is that I just don't know the job, when you yourself have admitted you have played the job less then me, then shouldn't by your logic you be staying out of this? So either you are admitting you can have an opinion about a job before 70, that you are simply parroting others here, or that you are a hypocrite. Which is it, or is it 'D' and all of the above?

I won't speak for others, but I specifically never called you a he or she. I responded directly to you, not in third person. With that said, I think correcting them once would have been enough. If they change their opinion based on your gender, that's a them problem and something they would need to deal with. Back on topic, I'm reading KaivaC's comments as a generalization (as in, several jobs don't fully flesh out until 70), not BLM specific. However, if KaivaC was trying to talk about BLM, and is not 70, my opinion would be the same for them as it is for you. Until there is extensive experience, I'd defer to the more experienced person as they've been playing it through several iterations, and thus have more of a baseline to make suggestions. Not to say you shouldn't be expressing your opinion, just that I wouldn't put much weight in it. Yes, this holds true for me as well as I'm just getting around to having BLM be my main, so I have a long way to go in learning all the nuances before offering suggestions.

[Malkria]

Until there is extensive experience, I'd defer to the more experienced person as they've been playing it through several iterations, and thus have more of a baseline to make suggestions. Not to say you shouldn't be expressing your opinion, just that I wouldn't put much weight in it. Yes, this holds true for me as well as I'm just getting around to having BLM be my main, so I have a long way to go in learning all the nuances before offering suggestions.

Which in turn is flawed for various reasons. Already I have had people telling me that Heavensward or 4.1 BLM had it much worse then it is currently at. While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that the isuess being discussed are how the job is played TODAY. That also negates a new person who may not be a 'veteran' of the job, but still is a vital source of feedback because a new perspective might be overlooked by someone who is used to a certain way of doing things. That would be like ignoring the feedback of new blood in your workplace because "well that just isn't how things are done" even though said feedback might very well make things better in whatever regards. Third...just because things work again does not mean it is a good design. Just because something is functional does not mean it is a good design, these two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Finally, the biggest fallacy of this argument is that it would me we should always defer to the person with the most experience, but that in itself is dangerous logic because just because someone has been playing longer does not automatically translate to a better understanding of a game or even game design. For all you the dissenting voice could have years of experience outside of said game either as a "professional" gamer, game designer, reviewer, or any other job that requires critical thought of how a game is put together. Even if they didn't, depending on their background of games played with a diverse enough history they could still have just as valid a critical eye as those who have a more professional take of the matter. So simply going by "Well they have played more then you, so they know more" is actually not a good worldview to take, in any part of one's life. That is why we have critical thinking skills (or we should hopefully).

I'm reading KaivaC's comments as a generalization (as in, several jobs don't fully flesh out until 70), not BLM specific.

Except he literally called me out to say that it was because of me and THIS thread that he was even taking an interest in the job, going so far as to cite playtime in the PoTD as in his eyes negating my argument. So again, going by your logic he shouldn't be weighing in. So either his viewpoint is valid despite less experience then me in the job, his argument is based on parroting others in regards to this job, or he is a hypocrite. By specifically stating I don't understand the nuances, he is inferring that even with less experience and less time spent in the class he is able to understand the fundamentals of the job and how it is meant to be played. In which case I could turn around and use the argument made against me in that he hasn't hit 70 and isn't as experienced in the job so he doesn't know what he is talking about. Which in turn is demonstrating all the fallacy I was pointing out above.

Level isn't a measure of proficiency.

Which flies in the face of everything people were telling me in the beginning in that I hadn't gotten to 70 and thus couldn't make an accurate judgment on the job. Funny how that works now that you have someone who is less the 70, and who agrees with your stance, how suddenly level doesn't matter for knowing the 'nuances' of this job.

[Kabooa]

Which flies in the face of everything people were telling me in the beginning in that I hadn't gotten to 70 and thus couldn't make an accurate judgment on the job. Funny how that works now that you have someone who is less the 70, and who agrees with your stance, how suddenly level doesn't matter for knowing the 'nuances' of this job.

I ain't everyone.

Level is not a measure of proficiency. It doesn't take much to figure this out. Understanding and execution are two different things, but neither is related to level, and barely related to the leveling process, as is readily apparent.

You know what measures proficiency?

Proficiency.

How can you tell who's proficient at Black Mage? You take the aggregate data available and look at who does the best of them. Most actions taken, most damage dealt, most uptime, least damage taken, amount of single buffs received, etc.

Even if every single black mage was playing it wrong, the one sitting on top is still the best one of the dumpster. High Level Black Mage play is about taking the simple mechanics presented and working them in an environment that seems antithetical to the Black Mage's existence.

That's the point of the job. There's no shame in going elsewhere if that's not your stick.

[Malkria]

How can you tell who's proficient at Black Mage? You take the aggregate data available and look at who does the best of them. Most actions taken, most damage dealt, most uptime, least damage taken, amount of single buffs received, etc.

So what you are trying to say is that unless I am topping the charts with whatever parser then apparently I am not 'proficient' and thus can't judge the job or any of it's issues? Despite the fact that A) pasrsers are against the game's ToS, and B) that isn't true. You can understand a job, examine a job, and find fault with a job all without needing to top any sort of parser. That literally has NOTHING to do with juding if someone has an understanding a job...well unless you are one of those people who judge others based on parsers but, again, that would be breaching the ToS and basically making you a jerk.

YoshiP has said in interviews that BLM is meant to be a complex job. It's the one he plays and he said specifically he doesn't want it overly simplified. And that's fine. We have lots of jobs specifically so we can have different play styles and different levels of complexity. BLM is on the higher end.

Which is fine...where did I say I want the job made simpler? My having an issue with aspects of the job has never led to me asking for the job to be made simpler, and in fact the ideas I presented to "fix" the issues I have were specifically in mind to preserver the turret mentality of the job. I have no issues with the fire and ice mechanic or the cast times in and of themselves, it's mainly around the timer and how that directly relates to mobility, which both in my eyes could be done in a much more natural feeling way WITHOUT sacrificing the BLM's identity or the major turret play style people like about it.

Also...is this a complex or simple job? Because the reigning mentality is that this is supposed to be a very straightforwards and "simple" turret style DPS job.

So who do you trust for understanding the game design? Because you do not seem to agree with anyone here.

Well off the bat, the people who don't lead off with "you just don't understand the nuances of the job"...because yes I get that it's a turret job. That was NEVER in question. The issue I take with the job is in the execution of said game-play style and how it well it meshes, or doesn't, with the overall game. Thing is, yes the job is 100% playable and I have never argued that. But what I have stated is that the job could be done in a way that keeps the turret gameplay while still keeping the job as mobile as the game demands most of the time.

My biggest issue is that again the job relies on momentum so much, which is fine, but then uses a timer that just stops the DPS when it runs out...and to me that isn't fine. As supposedly Yoshi wants, this job could stand to have a little more ACTUAL nuance with how it built up power. Such as getting faster at casting and/or more power the longer you stay in a spot. But by making it all about a timer, and moving between GCD ticks, not only does it make the job feel janky to play but it is in contrast to how every other job simply moves when needed to avoid mechanics. Which again while it does make the BLM "unique" it also puts it in start contrast unnecessarily when better mechanic options exist and have been done.

[Kabooa]

Yep. I'm saying proficiency isn't given because the number next to your name is 70. It's earned.

It is one of the most well oiled DPS jobs currently available, and nearly completely self sufficient. It depends on no one for its performance, and literally everything else they do get is considered a bonus.

It is engaging. It is masked by a layer of simplicity for the mastery required on a fight by fight basis, and rewarded properly for doing so.

Just because you haven't gotten to that point yet doesn't make it the job's fault. You have been given every tool you need to succeed.

[P_Wing]

So what you are trying to say is that unless I am topping the charts with whatever parser then apparently I am not 'proficient' and thus can't judge the job or any of it's issues?

I think there are issues that is gone with enough practice, and issues that cannot be solved by practicing (like BLM lacking party buffs, etc).
Your issues are the former, and it doesn't mean it shouldn't be solved. Because they will make entry to the class easier and probably more people will play the class. That's fine on its own.

However, knowing SE, people here knows that if they buff the AF/UI timers like you said, BLM's damage would be nerfed in exchange for that buff.
Therefore, people who doesn't have issues with the timers in the first place would not want that.

That's behind the reason why we have been saying that it's not the real issues here. We can't get all the convenient buffs in the world without trading something for it.

[Remyogic]

So what you are trying to say is that unless I am topping the charts with whatever parser then apparently I am not 'proficient' and thus can't judge the job or any of it's issues? Despite the fact that A) pasrsers are against the game's ToS, and B) that isn't true. You can understand a job, examine a job, and find fault with a job all without needing to top any sort of parser. That literally has NOTHING to do with juding if someone has an understanding a job...well unless you are one of those people who judge others based on parsers but, again, that would be breaching the ToS and basically making you a jerk.

Your statement is confusing...........So you're saying that judging your damage output in a damage dealing job against the average of your peers output in the same job is not a fair appraisal of proficiency in said job? How else would you measure proficiency?

Understanding a job DOES NOT equal being proficient at execution of said job. That's like saying the 50 year old 400lb guy that never leaves his couchis a better Basketball player than Michael Jordan because he can site everything there is to know about basketball.

What people keep trying to point out to you is not whether or not you UNDERSTAND the job, it is that it is impossible to competently judge the job until you are PROFICIENT at it; and that the complaints you have raised are issues due to a lack of proficiency.

[Remyogic]

But what I have stated is that the job could be done in a way that keeps the turret gameplay while still keeping the job as mobile as the game demands most of the time.

tur·ret
ˈtərət/Submit
noun
noun: turret; plural noun: turrets; noun: turret shell; plural noun: turret shells
1.
a small tower on top of a larger tower or at the corner of a building or wall, typically of a castle.
a low, flat armored gun emplacement, typically one that revolves, in a ship, aircraft, fort, or tank.

This is where you lose people and credibility that you understand the job. Please explain to me where any of that definition sounds like a Turret is mobile. A turret is a fixed position damage weapon.

[Zerathor]

So what you are trying to say is that unless I am topping the charts with whatever parser then apparently I am not 'proficient' and thus can't judge the job or any of it's issues?

Yes. For blm to not top the damage, it means you do not know the job. How can you judge what you do not know properly? Nobody would take that seriously.

Despite the fact that A) pasrsers are against the game's ToS,

False, you just can't kick bad players for being bad dps. Even devs parse. This stuff is all pretty common knowledge.

B) that isn't true.

True, if they are actually performing properly. 99% of the time with zero feed back however, they are not. unless they have friends who assist them with data. Unless you meant the ability to judge how a job you don't know works, in which case, see point one.

[Malkria]

Roger AND Ebert? "CRITICS" "THEY" LOL......it's ROGER EBERT. ONE PERSON. Great argument from a stance of knowledge.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert

Read his bio, I'd say he had quite an extensive grasp on entertainment, writing proficiency, and storytelling. You shot yourself in the foot with this one..

You are right, I meant Siskel and Ebert. Either way, they were MOVIE critics...but they didn't make movies. But with their backgrounds even not being directly related to making movies, they still were able to make thoughtful critical analysis of aspects of movies. By your logic they shouldn't know what they were talking about.

This is a joke right? Sighting Youtube as the basis for any argument is laughable.

Really? Because the fact that these reviewers are able to make money of said review to the point it is their job shows that their opinion is valued by enough people for that to be true. Furthermore supporting my statement that you don't have to make games to be able to critique them, because while you could argue that it is partly showmanship and have a valid point. The fact is that if they didn't have good points and understand the games they were reviewing they wouldn't be able to keep a viewer base. So again, by your logic these people would have needed to work in the game development industry for years, where most of them were gamers who decided to start reviewing games.

So laugh all you want, but it still is a valid platform for reviews and the reviewers are legit at what they do.

Mounted on legs? REALLY?!?!?!

"Setting up your gun in a turret fashion" - Dropping the tripod stabilizers on a machine gun is NOWHERE near this analogy. The statement is just blind.

BTW -> Putting a turret on a mobile base is so that you can move your firepower INTO harms way and do the most damage. That's the reason turrets are most commonly found on ARMORED vehicles. Whose point is falling flat?

So setting up your gun in a braced manner to better track and put down targets is in no way or shape to how a turret functions? Then the BLM isn't a turret either, A) a BLM can move at all under their own power, B) the job isn't "a small tower on top of a larger tower or at the corner of a building or wall, typically of a castle;" or "a low, flat armored gun emplacement, typically one that revolves, in a ship, aircraft, fort, or tank." So since you brought in that definition...that one is on you.

In fact I don't even understand your intent at this point. I mean I understand that the job is supposed to play in a 'turret style', but it still isn't an actual turret. So I honestly have no clue what your argument in this section is trying to do or show.

Yes. For blm to not top the damage, it means you do not know the job. How can you judge what you do not know properly? Nobody would take that seriously.

For "BLM to not top the damage"...not exactly sure what you are saying here. If I am not topping the damage as a BLM? If the job in general is not top damage?

Either way, again you don't need to top the parser to understand how the job works, or at minimum how it is being played. The intent is for the job to be trying to push out as much damage without moving as much as possible to maximize the timer for umbral hearts and astral fire phases of damage, correct? Meanwhile using swift and triple cast along with the other instant procs to move as necessary around mechanics, at least the ones you can't just eat the damage over. So if I understand all that...why do I need to make top parser, which again is against the ToS to use, to be able to form an opinion? You don't always need to master something to know that something just isn't being done as well as it could be.

Furthermore your stated attitude is exactly why the devs don't like parsers. I would report you myself but frankly I doubt the moderators have the ability to ban your game from the forum, and even if you say you use them there isn't any actual proof of it. So I guess we will just have to settle with you being called a jerk, you jerk.