Black Mage

[Terkhev]

F4 had same pps as TC, but now it will be stronger. Does that mean, unless we need to move, we will always keep TC proc and use it only in umbral? Longer duration should make it possible.

[zuzu-bq]

Thundercloud is better because of the dot. Thunder III's Thundercloud always been and still is our best spell.

[EllieShadeflare]

Thundercloud is better because of the dot. Thunder III's Thundercloud always been and still is our best spell.

It certainly is, but we still don't want to waste too much of any remaining DoT on a target should we get it. The increase to 18s should allow us to at least wait until we get to Umbral to consider blasting them with the full potency, instead of wasting damage over time.

[zuzu-bq]

That is the idea though. The increase by 6s should've been done from the start. Since our Fire rotation was delayed by a base of 6s with Hearts (now 5.6s).

[EllieShadeflare]

Something I think is worth pointing out is that I was wrong about something that I had been constantly throwing out whenever I was talking about the numbers for Black Mage. I apologize for my inaccuracies, but one cannot simply use 1.9x to include Enochian and Astral Fire.

As all damage buffs are multipliers, this means that the potency of Fire spells is actually Base Potency * 1.8 * 1.1. As a result, instead of the 494 and 532 potencies I had mentioned for Fire IV's old and returning potency, it's actually 515 and 554 potency respectively. To compare, Fire IV's potency was a mere 10 potency less than an unbuffed, pre 4.2 Fell Cleave (You can't leave out Deliverance, so it's 525 potency for that) and the current potency is the same as Verflare/Verholy, spell finishers for Red Mage's melee burst combo.

I mean, it's a minor mistake that mean the difference of 20 potency higher over the old estimates, but something to keep in mind. Particularly, we're not all that far from Foul's potency already regarding our basic DPS spell (In fact, 100 potency less than an un-Enochian'd Foul, 65 potency less than an Enochian'd Foul) so we shouldn't overbuff it too far in our estimates. A potency of 300 base for Fire IV is enough to be a mere 5-6 potency away from 600 total, aka 60 potency less than a fully Storm's Path and Maimed post 4.2 Fell Cleave.

[Silver_Blade]

My ideas for fixing BLM.
Make manawall affect the whole group for 15% instead of the BLM for 30.
Leylines gives the group a 10-15% haste for 10 Seconds on activation.
That would give them one utility CD and one group DPS boost that would synergize perfectly with trick attack, litany and chain strategen.
This would make them a asset to any group combination.
I just don't see how SE can think SAM BLM and DRK are fine bringing nothing to the group.
Bringing this classes literally hurts your group.

[Llugen]

Time for me to weigh in.


These changes that we are getting today reflect a much deeper problem than "meta" or BLM issues, they reflect that the developer team is almost entirely out of sync with the playerbase's view for the game. WAR got the overhaul that literally no one asked for (WARs only wanted a small single target damage increase and slightly less clunky beast gauge), while DRK (which has been problematic since 4.0 proper) received virtually nothing. And now MNK, which by and large was already doing almost as much DAMAGE as SAM (which is to say nothing of its playability which everyone did in fact complain about and I can relate to that) is getting a pretty significant buff, particularly in the form of faster-built GL3 and benefiting from its own Brotherhood.

It is apparent that some kind of class-correspondence with leading/trusted is in order to even out this issue. All player "requests and ideas" should not be blindly implemented, but the disconnect lies where the developer team's "vision" directly clashes with the playerbase's idea of how jobs function based on their crunching. Side note: Remember this moment whenever someone says "they never overhaul classes mid-expansion, so don't bother suggesting it". This is proof right here that they absolutely do.



This is painfully obvious in that SE does not understand the value of uptime vs "clipping" on casters (or BLM, at least), getting finally to the BLM changes. The Aetherial Manipulation change is welcome and desirable (particularly if Sigmascape is very movement intensive), but without a proc with which to weave it, you are still back to square one with the damage loss. The increased proc timer is helpful, but without actually increasing the procs obtained, chances to weave are still very small, and clipping is basically the only option. This is where the damage is lost.


Some 100 pages back I predicted that SE would do the foolish thing and just toss 20 potency back on Fire IV and call it a day, and here we are, living it. Meanwhile, other jobs (WAR currently, MCH previously, even SMN) get complete overhauls. I suppose this is our reward (punishment?) for being "YoshiP's pet class", so please kindly remind anyone of this the next time they try to say "BLM will never be bad".




Dear Square Enix,

At least consider giving Fire IV access to the Firestarter trait so we can Firestart and weave when necessary (and potentially not need to cast Fire I at level flipping 70 like scrubs). Further, get the hell RID of Transpose at level 70 (for crying out loud) and give us the Freeze change that we've been suggesting (BEGGING for) for four and a half years. Even with your AOE nerfs to SMN, it will still be the strongest AOE damage by a large margin, and if your goal is still "raw DPS no utility", then BLM deserves to reflect that with AOE damage as well. Period.

"But a proper buff to Freeze will make BLM aoe damage broken!" I can hear you say. And to that all I have to say is....

[Neela]

being "YoshiP's pet class", so please kindly remind anyone of this the next time they try to say "BLM will never be bad".

Reality check: Blm isn't bad and it never was.

Its just not the best one atm and that is what really pisses you off – two absolutely different points. sry.

[Llugen]

Reality check: Blm isn't bad and it never was.

Its just not the best one atm and that is what really pisses you off – two absolutely different points. sry.

As far as I'm concerned, they define the class as "raw damage no utility" and yet it does less total damage than jobs that are "high damage some utility" such as SMN (and more than likely now MNK), both single target and AOE. See also: bad. Plain and simple.

I wouldn't be angry about it "not being the best" if they weren't trying to tell me that it's supposed to be "the best". That shouldn't be complicated, I don't think. More simply put, it's the fact that it does not function as advertised that is the MOST legitimate frustration, proc numbers/synergy/movement capability/clipping aside. If you can't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you, to be honest.

[Neela]

I wouldn't be angry about it "not being the best" if they weren't trying to tell me that it's supposed to be "the best". That shouldn't be complicated, I don't think. If you can't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you, to be honest.

we are not talking about utility and not about comparison - we talk about Blm being bad at all and that actually isn't true. that part that I quoted is just not true, thats what im all about. so: "If you can't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you –cause to be honest you totally missed the point. See also: bad. Plain and simple."