SE are leaving BLM to rot by giving SMN and RDM even more utility

[SaberMaxwell]

if they gave blm a raid ulitity they would also have to tone down the damage and no thank you

Not necessarily considering the casters are balanced against each other and not the other roles. If all three had raise, they could be balanced without considering raise too heavily.

[Taranok]

Not necessarily considering the casters are balanced against each other and not the other roles. If all three had raise, they could be balanced without considering raise too heavily.

More precisely, it's designed as a core component of the role. Caster identity->cast bars (new summoner will be lulsy on this)->can res players with moderate to severe considerations->addle.

That said, BLM should still be balanced in a unique way. It should not get a raise identical to RDM or SMN. It should not be able to triplecast 3 raises basically for free because of its unlimited MP generation. Which is why I feel it should get something uniquely BLM in design that is simultaneously the weakest raise but also the most powerful if you use it sparingly.

[Rai_Takara]

Okay, stretch armstrong.

Let's be real here: Verraise is the only true manifestation of a Red Mage's versatility in this version of the job. You absolutely cannot remove it without obliterating the job's identity, plain and simple. It would and should cause an uproar.

So, no, I don't believe they need to dump verraise or neuter verraise just because SMN loses their's. It's absolutely logical to allow RDM to be the only DPS with a raise.

Balance takes priority, always.

Verraise being locked to SMN would be like how Shadewalker/Smokeskin was locked to NIN during HW/SB. This was removed for balance reasons along with enmity. Similar analog would be raises removed along with caster raises entirely, which is what 7.0 would look like.

Plus, you can replace Verraise with any cookie cutter white magic skill and most people will be fine with it. They've already added a magick barrier and I only foresee more things to be added along those lines.

More precisely, it's designed as a core component of the role. Caster identity->cast bars (new summoner will be lulsy on this)->can res players with moderate to severe considerations->addle.

That said, BLM should still be balanced in a unique way. It should not get a raise identical to RDM or SMN. It should not be able to triplecast 3 raises basically for free because of its unlimited MP generation. Which is why I feel it should get something uniquely BLM in design that is simultaneously the weakest raise but also the most powerful if you use it sparingly.

The proper way to deal with caster raises if all 3 were to get them is like BLU, with a slight modification. Change them to an oGCD on a 3 minute cooldown with 0 MP cost and move it to the role actions. This way it's a free raise every 3 minutes that doesn't hurt anyone, but not something anyone can spam. The caster shouldn't have to be penalized to use raise as they sometimes do currently. The penalty for death is already paid with weakness.

[Katie_Kitty]

Balance takes priority, always.

Verraise being locked to SMN would be like how Shadewalker/Smokeskin was locked to NIN during HW/SB. This was removed for balance reasons along with enmity. Similar analog would be raises removed along with caster raises entirely, which is what 7.0 would look like.

Plus, you can replace Verraise with any cookie cutter white magic skill and most people will be fine with it. They've already added a magick barrier and I only foresee more things to be added along those lines.




The proper way to deal with caster raises if all 3 were to get them is like BLU, with a slight modification. Change them to an oGCD on a 3 minute cooldown with 0 MP cost and move it to the role actions. This way it's a free raise every 3 minutes that doesn't hurt anyone, but not something anyone can spam. The caster shouldn't have to be penalized to use raise as they sometimes do currently. The penalty for death is already paid with weakness.

You're talking completely out of your butt with nothing but speculation to back it up. Not once has yoshi ever spoken about removing verraise. it's not on the agenda and there's no indication it's ever been. Sooo. Yeah you're wrong.

[Gruntler]

Plus, you can replace Verraise with any cookie cutter white magic skill

No, because in serious content we don't want to be spending our time casting cures. The one we have is for when things turn to absolute shit, or to prime dualcast without a target.

Verraise is actually useful, at keeping your team in the fight. And RDM damage is pretty damn good these days.

I will never understand the player base that wants to take a job that's in a very good spot and shoot it behind the barn.

[Taranok]

*snip*

The real problem is that unlimited raising causes serious problems for the encounter designers. It's not obvious unless you've played long enough, but they had to invent the damage down mechanic just to stop straight up killing players for failing mechanics. That wasn't interesting design. It also forces the game to have DPS checks because there's no triage system that collapses a healer's ability to heal, which in turn is why the damage down is so effective.

Actually, unlimited ressing in general basically demands that you kill players for simple mistakes in all forms of content. Contrast this to DRS or BA. No one can res outside of very, very limited tools. It's so limited that you are very unlikely to get more than, say, 20 out of a single group without relying on reraisers instead.

In BA, they were able to make mechanics not give damage downs, and also not straight up kill you most of the time, but still have a rather tense fight. DRS had the system of killing you for repeated mistakes, so you had some wiggle room and most mechanics didn't straight up kill you for failure.

My point is mostly that RDM having a raise isn't as good a mechanic as you think it is, and it does harm encounter design at a technical level. It's in the same boat as, say, every healer having a medica (except scholar, sad) as well as an assize (aoe heal part) and a ton of other aoe heals. At a certain point, you have to design every encounter around the fact that you can 100% top off an entire party from 1 life to full in 2 GCDs and 2 oGCDs between 2 healers, and that likewise harms the variety of what you can do in encounter design.

That said, I'm not strictly advocating for or against it. I can see benefits and drawbacks to both examples. However, at the end of the day, I firmly believe 1 thing. Either every caster gets it, or none of them should have it.

[Archwizard]

The real problem is that unlimited raising causes serious problems for the encounter designers.

Actually, unlimited ressing in general basically demands that you kill players for simple mistakes in all forms of content.

However, at the end of the day, I firmly believe 1 thing. Either every caster gets it, or none of them should have it.

One flaw in what you're saying however: Your hypothesis about "unlimited ressing" is being targeted at RDM and casters in general, but your arguments are broad enough to encompass healers as well. Everything you said claims that raising is harmful to the game's design, full stop -- not that it's an issue when some casters have it.

[Katie_Kitty]

The real problem is that unlimited raising causes serious problems for the encounter designers. It's not obvious unless you've played long enough, but they had to invent the damage down mechanic just to stop straight up killing players for failing mechanics. That wasn't interesting design. It also forces the game to have DPS checks because there's no triage system that collapses a healer's ability to heal, which in turn is why the damage down is so effective.

Actually, unlimited ressing in general basically demands that you kill players for simple mistakes in all forms of content. Contrast this to DRS or BA. No one can res outside of very, very limited tools. It's so limited that you are very unlikely to get more than, say, 20 out of a single group without relying on reraisers instead.

In BA, they were able to make mechanics not give damage downs, and also not straight up kill you most of the time, but still have a rather tense fight. DRS had the system of killing you for repeated mistakes, so you had some wiggle room and most mechanics didn't straight up kill you for failure.

My point is mostly that RDM having a raise isn't as good a mechanic as you think it is, and it does harm encounter design at a technical level. It's in the same boat as, say, every healer having a medica (except scholar, sad) as well as an assize (aoe heal part) and a ton of other aoe heals. At a certain point, you have to design every encounter around the fact that you can 100% top off an entire party from 1 life to full in 2 GCDs and 2 oGCDs between 2 healers, and that likewise harms the variety of what you can do in encounter design.

That said, I'm not strictly advocating for or against it. I can see benefits and drawbacks to both examples. However, at the end of the day, I firmly believe 1 thing. Either every caster gets it, or none of them should have it.

Verraise is not unlimited. You are limited by a very limited MP bar.

[ItMe]

Verraise is not unlimited. You are limited by a very limited MP bar.

Truth.
And youre also limited by RDM's very limited MP restoring tools.
They can burst some rezzes out, but man can just a handful of rezzes really cripple them.

[Taranok]

Verraise is not unlimited. You are limited by a very limited MP bar.

Let me rephrase: "Indefinite" raises. The rest of my point is still very much valid, because even +4 raises before running out is something you have to design encounters around having potentially.