Regarding the reaction to 6.1 SAM changes

[Edweena]

A good way to put the Kaiten change (regarding mechanics, not numbers or performance) is that it brings Samurai closer to Scholar levels of pointless resource bloat.
Aetherflow and Faerie Gauge (especially faerie gauge) have no meaningful interaction with eachother (you gain faerie gauge from using aetherflow abilities wooooo).
Scholar is in sore need of a complete retooling regarding it's resources, either turning the faerie gauge into something meaningful to spend, like an addersting gauge (which is more exciting at least), or interact with it's kit.

Kaiten was the only thing that bridged the gap between the stickers and the kenki gauge. Now you can throw the kenki gauge off screen because you don't need it any time except for dumping on a button that glows.
If shinten glows you press it, if shoha glows you press it. (pooling has also been diminished since the trick attack change got rid of our 1m window where we DIDN'T have Ikishoten)
They said they wanted to make way for changes in the future with kaiten's removal, but should have honestly held off until they had something to REPLACE kaiten. It's quite literally a faerie gauge now.

Oh and if anyone is excited because it frees up button bloat there are nearly half a dozen better solutions with no downside whatsoever in every Samurai forum, please don't settle for less.
They could have gotten rid of TWO buttons instead of one this patch but didn't.
Imagine Ikishoten gives you another buff like Ogi Namikiri Ready, called lets say, "Hissatu: Ready" and what it does is change Hissatu: Shinten / Kyuten into Hissatu: Senei / Guren respectively, and when you press either ability the buff gets consumed.
You still have Senei and Guren in the game, they're just bound to Shinten and Kyuten respectively, functioning 100% the same, and ALSO IT REDUCES POTENTIAL DRIFT since the CD is tied to Ikishoten, lowering the skill floor for all sorts of players.

And thats just one idea that has no drawbacks whatsoever.

[Roxus]

Removing Kaiten also allows for different development of Samurai in general.
Introducing any new weaponskills while Kaiten exists risks lot of unintended consequences.
"Oops, the new weaponskill has too much potency, now SAM rotation is just spamming it with Kaiten"

Justifying the removal of a core gameplay element for Samurai with a hypothetical skill we may never get is asinine.

[Ayche]

Justifying the removal of a core gameplay element for Samurai with a hypothetical skill we may never get is asinine.

I don't have a dog in that race, they could had kept Kaiten in the game until that moment comes.
But Shinten vs Kaiten disparity was always going to limit future actions no matter what.

[CuragaCura]

I don't have a dog in that race, they could had kept Kaiten in the game until that moment comes.
But Shinten vs Kaiten disparity was always going to limit future actions no matter what.

That level of logic is very limiting in of itself.

What is even the use of "disparity" here? What difference is there between these two abilities as far as spending Kenki for potency goes? Why are you assuming things in a vacuum? Why are you trying to say that this limits future actions when the whole premise is to build off the kit of the class? What exactly is the point of spending Kenki if you only have one option for it? What is the point of Kenki then?

Shrek crying Donkey.

[Roxus]

I don't have a dog in that race, they could had kept Kaiten in the game until that moment comes.
But Shinten vs Kaiten disparity was always going to limit future actions no matter what.

I fail to understand what you are trying to say. Shinten and Kaiten are used in balance of each other. There wasn't a case where you never use one without the other (Besides Hagakure meta, where Kaiten was actually the skill that was ignored). Your argument is flawed.

[Ayche]

That level of logic is very limiting in of itself.

It is only the truth. On-demand +50% potency is going to limit any kind of weaponskill development.

[CuragaCura]

It is only the truth. On-demand +50% potency is going to limit any kind of weaponskill development.

What kind of single-celled organism did you pull that idea from?

[VentVanitas]

[Ayche]

What kind of single-celled organism did you pull that idea from?

Less attitude okay. Anyway, it is the same reason why Reassemble is probably holding Machinist back on some level, where everything new has to be tuned around either being another Drill to work with it, or is just more Queen abilities that cannot be affected by Reassemble. A general ability keeping Machinist "kit" to speak from changing.

Also if you wanna respond to me, just quote me like a normal person please.

[CuragaCura]

Less attitude okay. Anyway, it is the same reason why Reassemble is probably holding Machinist back on some level, where everything new has to be tuned around either being another Drill to work with it, or is just more Queen abilities that cannot be affected by Reassemble. A general ability keeping Machinist "kit" to speak from changing.

Also if you wanna respond to me, just quote me like a normal person please.

So you went from Kaiten holding Samurai back to Reassemble MAYBE holding Machinist back. No matter how you look at it, you are not resolving the issue of identity loss by saying that it holds back the class because of some inane reason where having an ability block development of the class meant that new abilities cannot be developed for the class. How did Summon Bahamut get created if Summon Carbuncle was holding SMN back? Why can't Carbuncle just be perma-summoned out? Why is Ikishoten used to allow the use of Ogi Namikiri? Why isn't Summon Phoenix something that is created to replace Dreadwyrm Trance? It's an upgrade/replacement to an existing skill right? But shouldn't it block development of the class because the skill somehow... builds... off... the original kit? That's why I wonder if I ended up quoting something out of a single-cell organism. The idea that an ability can block the development of a class is actually so one-dimensional to me that I often times wonder if the experimental hypothesis for the statement was conceived as a harebrained scheme. But please, answer my original question of how then.