Bring Back Kaiten

[Carighan]

Oh, I see where the disconnect comes from.

I see them all as adding ~0 depth, simply because all of the examples you give merely ask for a certain amount of digital dexterity (as in, your fingers) while going through a pre-solved rotation that is optimized for you. All actual modifications to this happen only as a result of either a) the fight forcing more than a workaround, some deeper break like delaying a whole burst window and this messing with certain jobs that rely on gauges or cycles or b) messing up, drifting, and then depending on the job being more or less able to rectify this.
Which are both, importantly, external to the actual job design. They're not part of the job itself, they only interact with the portion of the kit "vulnerable to" drifting or delaying.

Now don't get me wrong, static rotation type classes can be really well-designed. They just always tend to be shallow in their gameplay, as nowadays we can simply look up the optimal rotation and then it's all just about honing said dexterity to never fumble your buttons. At which point the entire gameplay is a physical exercise, with its difficulty scaled on how often you have to press buttons (so lots of oGCD weaving = more difficult).

A form of difficulty for sure, but sadly not at all the type I personally enjoy. :'(

[Shurrikhan]

I see them all as adding ~0 depth, simply because all of the examples you give merely ask for a certain amount of digital dexterity (as in, your fingers)

Name any rotation in any game and chances are that all depth amounts simply to, again, digital dexterity and quickness to respond to visual cues.

Every risk/compromise has breakpoints before which A is better and after which B is better. Every RNG output still has an optimal action (not necessarily the roll that one, but always the roll that has the greater effective probability of winning, the 1-99 in a 99% chance, rather than the 100 that may have ended up the output despite all odds). One can be forced to memorize a greater number of situations, but there is still ultimately a best output for each.

At best, such therefore shifts which is easier between complete memorization and memorization of guidelines/breakpoints/rough_estimates only.

They just always tend to be shallow in their gameplay, as nowadays we can simply look up the optimal rotation and then it's all just about honing said dexterity to never fumble your buttons.

I'd agree, but at the same total complexity against a striking dummy, etc., the same could be said of a kit firmly in the cult of RNGesus. So long as there are no varied encounter opportunities from which to revalue skills, a chance-based job will nonetheless follow a strict APL (action priority list).

Yes, a RNG-varied kit provides a greater number of exact situations (even if they might easily be boiled down by math into a much smaller number) per action than a chance-less kit, but both require shifting parameters (effective mob count, TTK, positional access, etc.) to see variance between combating a striking dummy and doing a given encounter.

All actual modifications to this happen only as a result of either a) the fight forcing more than a workaround, some deeper break like delaying a whole burst window and this messing with certain jobs that rely on gauges or cycles or b) messing up, drifting, and then depending on the job being more or less able to rectify this.
Which are both, importantly, external to the actual job design. They're not part of the job itself, they only interact with the portion of the kit "vulnerable to" drifting or delaying.

Yet those are no less, fundamentally, than the impacts incurred within nonstatic rotations.

A form of difficulty for sure, but sadly not at all the type I personally enjoy. :'(

Same. I prefer having to do quick maths than to just have quick hands. (A bit of chance tends to help with that, aye, and varied situations in each encounter even more so.) And for that reason, losing Kaiten wasn't all that impactful to me, personally.

My point is, though, that Kaiten did maintain most of the qualities generally associated with "decent" or even "good" skill designs: It vitally enhanced surrounding systems (for which it was neither unique nor quite sufficient but still necessary), added stress to surrounding weaves enough to increase threat of drift, etc. and thereby incentivize a bit more forethought and raise cognitive load in a manageable but subtly noticeable way that lent SAM a bit more its persistent but readied vibe, held iconic flair and flavor, and doubled down on what to many felt best about Samurai.

For that reason, it was certainly a loss by nearly all criteria firmly and broadly held in consensus (i.e., as close as we can get to "objective" in an experience), including those usually held by players defending its removal.