The Samurai buffs are terrible. (Preliminary Patch Notes)

[gintokiygo]

I agree with the notion that We shouldn't have to compare Sam to Blm the only point that we are using Blm for is that Blm is at a good point in damage and Sam could stand to be buffed to the same damage output.

[Exiled_Tonberry]

I think it was said before, but the difference in SAM and BLM is the difficultly of the job. BLM is multiple times more difficult to master than a SAM, so if a BLM is doing more damage than a SAM that's fair. You need a reason to bring one over a SAM afterall. SAM should be the strongest personal DPS in comparison to Monk, not the strongest DPS in the game. That's why they're compared to by Monk exclusively so often.

As for them still not beating Monk by a large gap, well yeah of course. SAM should be doing more than Monk's personal dps, but about the same as them with raid utility. Too much damage and you have to wonder why we'd bring a Monk. It's just hard to balance raid utility as it's power varies dramatically depending on how the party uses it.

Overall though, SE once again is proving that they simply can't handle balancing "selfish" DPS jobs. This happened with Monk, with BLM and now SAM. I really wish they'd stop trying.

[ObsidianFire]

As someone who casually plays (doesn't raid) I'm more annoyed by how "enmity management" was handled. Getting Open Eyes to proc when using Third Eye isn't easy. If you're doing a good job and staying out of the obvious AOE markers, then there's no reason to even use Third Eye. It's really only "useful" if you know a room-wide AOE is coming and even then, you only have a 3 second window to time things right. I just don't see any reliable way to use Merciful Eyes as enmity management when it's so counter-intuitive to use (get hit with AOE on purpose?).

I'm almost annoyed SAM is getting the (small) damage buff with the enmity management set up this way since I am having trouble with enmity as it is. 120-sec CD on Diversion isn't currently cutting it and I can see the enmity problems getting only worse after the patch.

[zuzu-bq]

Not to mention, Black Mage and Samurai are designed to utterly lack utility. It'd make perfect sense for the two of them to be higher DPS than their counterparts, since they make up the gap in utility with sheer damage.

They only make up for the lack of utility if the other players are bad.

[Rita1989]

As someone who casually plays (doesn't raid) I'm more annoyed by how "enmity management" was handled. Getting Open Eyes to proc when using Third Eye isn't easy. If you're doing a good job and staying out of the obvious AOE markers, then there's no reason to even use Third Eye.

Uh you do know you have an OGCD that is reliant on using third eye right?

It takes practice but it's actually not that hard to proc it.

[ObsidianFire]

Yes, I do know there is a DPS gain skill tied to it. But if you're actively avoiding damage (which most DPS classes want to do to take a burden off the healers) then using Third Eye rarely ever procs Open Eyes because you often don't take damage while Third Eyes is up. The only situation where I can reliably proc Open eyes is in single-player content. It just feels very weird that Samurai are all but being encouraged to take damage to make any use of of Third Eye and the skills associated with it.

Third Eye is basically The Blackest Night retooled. Only it's got an even smaller window to take damage (3 sec vs 7 sec) on a class that's not supposed to take damage in the first place. It's the definition of a "Min/Max" skill. It can be completely worthless if you don't know the fight well enough to time it's use correctly and a slight DPS increase if you can time it correctly. Tying something like enmity reduction (which is not a "min/max" concept) to it makes no sense to me. If I'm a casual player having problems with generating too much enmity when I'm not even using an "optimized" Samurai rotation, then what is the point on having enmity reduction on a skill whose use requires me to be an "optimal" player to even use it?

I much as I like Samurai's rotations, I hate going Samurai in group content because I cause problems for casual tanks and I hate tanking for Samurais because they cause me to have to focus on generating enmity instead of being able to DPS. Putting enmity on a Lvl. 58 skill that's locked behind Samurais being optimal players of the job does nothing to fix that. And the enmnity problem is only going to be worse since Samurais will now be doing more damage then before.

[Makimaki_sargatanas]

Does +2% dps increase put SAM dps about 10% ahead of monk on dummy? Someone with strong math and preferable someone with both jobs might give us an insight on this?

[zuzu-bq]

Does +2% dps increase put SAM dps about 10% ahead of monk on dummy? Someone with strong math and preferable someone with both jobs might give us an insight on this?

SAM might beat MNK's personal if the MNK isn't in a speedrun scenario (perfect buff windows, uptime and TK+RoW stuff). This means it will be a good job to pug or simply play without worrying about raid total damage, similar position to BLM. Maybe even do progression with but people been putting up an absurd progression party together that only uses Dragoon as melee.

[EllieShadeflare]

They only make up for the lack of utility if the other players are bad.

Are you saying they should have a boost, or that they're useless with good players, or something in the middle?

[zuzu-bq]

Are you saying they should have a boost, or that they're useless with good players, or something in the middle?

The stronger the players are, the weaker jobs without synergy will be. This is not a bad thing though. The issue is that everyone thinks they're good enough to have a fully synergic party.