An extensive feedback on 6.1 Samurai changes

[Zeretus]

In this thread I want to compile my thoughts and impressions on 6.1 samurai adjustments after having experience with them doing end-game and more casual content for over 3 weeks.

Let's first go over the introduced changes as well as examine existing problems that those changes are trying to address. Overall we can group them up into 4 different categories:

1. Changes addressing crit variance
2. Changes addressing action bloat and job busyness
3. Potencies adjustments to account for aforementioned changes
4. Quality of Life changes

Evidently, the two major points those adjustments are trying to address are the dps fluctuation and action bloat. While I can agree that those indeed are valid concerns it's hard for me to say that I feel content with the way they were addressed. So let's discuss these problems more thoroughly.

DPS fluctuation
Samurai design revolves around working towards heavy hitting high potency skills, building up resources such as sen points, combo buffs, kenki generation and so on to then execute powerful Iaijutsu, rewarding your previous efforts. With that in mind we naturally end up in the situation where the major bulk of job's damage is aggregated around a handful of skills, which wouldn't be the problem in itself had we not introduce the concept of random critical hits, increasing the damage of those abilities by a portion of already large potency. Because of that samurai dps is a subject to rather noticeable random fluctuation without any regard for player's agency and performance. Which even contrasts with jobs that rely on random procs since a player still have to capitalise on them and utilise at a proper time.

From how I look at it, this problem can be approached from 2 angles. First is redistributing potencies more equally across all abilities, sacrificing a portion of the job's core identity in the process. Second is excluding critical hits from the equation, or rather making them guaranteed (which in essence are one and the same). And with how it is presented I'm actually in favour of the second approach although with some additions. The third option would be to leave that idea entirely until more fortunate circumstances, which in light of what other options entail is a genuinely serious consideration.