Magus fix

[J0t4ro]

Then it is also funny that you're also disputing havartii's "Magus has been top small scale for quite a while" claim, since that's the exact point i used against his "why ST and not AoE" argument. You're both arguing the recent ST changes didn't actually address what group content needs, just from opposite premises, he says that a magus is already strong small scale so AoE should've been prioritized, you say a magus was never strong there to begin with.

Also, i never claimed that a magus is top small scale myself, that was havartii's claim. I just used his own admission against his argument, so your "you guys having different thoughts about what small scale means" doesn't really apply to me here.

For clarity, when i say small scale, i mean things like 6v6s or 12v12s, not solo or full blob warband fights. If that's not what you or havartii mean, that might actually explain the disagreement.

See? That is whay you are not getting. I am not saying Magus is not strong, I am saying that is not strong ENOUGH for group content. In my opinion, Magus needed some little push to became a really good class in those scenarios. A heal debuff (tied to a pet if you like) and some changes on how the avoidances currently work would suffice. I think many people would agree on giving up some burst capability (burst should be a Sorcerer theme, not Magus anyway) for some of those changes.

Even in a 6vs6 or a 12vs12 its not the same if groups are not equally balanced. Healers and Tanks make all the difference. XvsX (no healers) Yes, Magus then its a monster. Why? because Magus damage output (specially AoE) is VERY high. However, is also very easily countered by healers healing output which makes sense (therefore is often called fluf damage).
The reason why I make this point is that someone might argue about what a monster a Magus is in certain scenario (which has happened A LOT on these threads) while disregarding the specific conditions.

As an additional note,I am sure you can notice how we started discussing over "small fights" (and probably between pugs) and solo roaming and now we are focused on structured small scale. Context is everything specially when asking for balance.

You said "Magus has never been top of any group content apart from maybe PvE". That's a pretty strong claim, got anything backing it up, or is that also "obviously just an opinion, not a fact" like you said about small scale a few posts ago?

On the ST changes not being "buffs," just QoL, fine, that's consistent with what you said earlier. I'm not arguing that this specific patch was some huge magus buff, that's a separate discussion from whether the magus's overall kit is appropriately tuned.

Well, yes, its indeed my opinion, like everything I say. If you need proof just use your common sense and look around while playing small scale. Magus is not popular in real premades. Most of the things that a Magus brings to the table in that kind of scale are often covered by other classes. I am not saying you will never see one because, yes, they are not bad but when it comes to optimizing stuff, Magus just does not make the cut.

I am nothing if not consistent. I may or may not explain myself correctly sometimes but my arguments are clear:
Magus might seem powerful while solo roaming but that does not mean it deserves an adjustment, specially not in terms of ST damage output since its already not enough for most grouped content.

? You just conceded the whole argument without realizing it.

You're proposing giving the magus a heal debuff and avoidance changes in exchange for less burst. That's not a neutral quality of life wishlist, is it? That's you admitting the burst is disproportionate to what a balanced group kit should carry. Pick one: "the burst isn't the problem" or "I'd trade the burst away." You can't argue both in the same post. One undercuts the other.

On "fluff damage getting countered by healing output" in XvsX, that's true of literally every DPS class against healers, not something specific to a magus. If that logic exempted the magus from scrutiny, it would exempt every burst class from scrutiny, and then nobody could discuss ST tuning for anything.

You also point out we drifted from solo/pug fights into structured premades, then use "magus isn't picked in real premades" as your evidence. But that's a different population than what this thread started on. If solo and pub small scale is where the complaints are coming from, pointing at optimized premade comp doesn't address that, it just changes which context gets measured.

And "use your common sense" for "never top of any group content" doesn't hold up any better than "obviously just an opinion, not a fact" did for your small scale claim, you're just choosing to hedge one and assert the other with confidence. I'm not asking you to have parses for everything, i'm pointing out the double standard in how you present your own claims.

Your actual position, stripped of the hedging, is: the magus dominates solo, and that's fine because it's supposedly bad in groups. That's a trade off argument, not a "magus isn't overtuned" argument. Argue that version honestly and we can actually get somewhere.

[GelatinousCube]

? You just conceded the whole argument without realizing it.

You're proposing giving the magus a heal debuff and avoidance changes in exchange for less burst. That's not a neutral quality of life wishlist, is it? That's you admitting the burst is disproportionate to what a balanced group kit should carry. Pick one: "the burst isn't the problem" or "I'd trade the burst away." You can't argue both in the same post. One undercuts the other.

What he said is completely self-consistent. If single target burst isn't as good as the detractors claim, then of course he would trade some of it for heal debuffs.

If burst WAS as good as you claim then he wouldn't be willing to trade it away. You're presenting this false dichotomy which doesn't make any sense logically.

As a Magus player I totally agree with him. I would love to be more effective in groups through heal debuffs if the trade off was losing some burst, and thereby nerfing Magus' solo power against most classes (except DPS-Healers, which need nerfs or counters anyway).

What he's presenting is as good a solution as any I've seen. It appeases the people who say Magus is OP as a solo class and it makes Magus actually reasonable to include in warbands.

[J0t4ro]

? You just conceded the whole argument without realizing it.

You're proposing giving the magus a heal debuff and avoidance changes in exchange for less burst. That's not a neutral quality of life wishlist, is it? That's you admitting the burst is disproportionate to what a balanced group kit should carry. Pick one: "the burst isn't the problem" or "I'd trade the burst away." You can't argue both in the same post. One undercuts the other.

What he said is completely self-consistent. If single target burst isn't as good as the detractors claim, then of course he would trade some of it for heal debuffs.

If burst WAS as good as you claim then he wouldn't be willing to trade it away. You're presenting this false dichotomy which doesn't make any sense logically.

As a Magus player I totally agree with him. I would love to be more effective in groups through heal debuffs if the trade off was losing some burst, and thereby nerfing Magus' solo power against most classes (except DPS-Healers, which need nerfs or counters anyway).

What he's presenting is as good a solution as any I've seen. It appeases the people who say Magus is OP as a solo class and it makes Magus actually reasonable to include in warbands.

I never claimed a specific degree of "how OP"? I've been arguing the magus's solo burst is strong enough that it shouldn't get waved away by "other classes are also fine solo" or "magus underperforms in groups." That's a claim about relative dominance, not a specific number, so "if it was as good as you claim" is answering a claim i didn't make.

On the trade off logic, fair point that willingness to trade doesn't automatically prove excess, a player can rationally give up a strong stat for utility they lack without that stat being overtuned. But that cuts both ways: your "if it was good he wouldn't trade it away" is just as unproven as the read you're objecting to. Neither direction settles whether the current burst is appropriate, does it?

What actually matters here isn't the trade itself, it's whether the magus's current solo performance is appropriate. If you think giving up some burst for a heal debuff is a fair deal, that's a separate discussion from whether the current burst level is fine "as-is", and Mishas has been arguing both "it's fine" and "I'd trade some of it away" without picking one.

As i said before, he's holding both positions at once, that's exactly the tension i pointed out originally.

If current damage is fine, not excessive and nothing to complain about, then there's no real reason to offer it up as a bargaining chip is there? You don't typically propose giving away part of something you've already argued is correctly tuned and not a problem. ("damage complains? please...", as he put it earlier)

Trading it away only makes sense if you think there's some slack in it, some room to give without meaningfully hurting the class, which is a different stance than "it's fine as-is, stop complaining about it."

So which is it, fine "as-is" like he originally argued, or excessive enough that he can afford to give some of it away?

[chook06]

In the end, this discussion is just going in circles: no one seems to genuinely listen to anyone else’s arguments. Everyone remains firmly stuck to their own position, claiming mostly based on feelings or impressions that the Magus is now overpowered or has been significantly improved.

Maybe with a bit more perspective, and especially after actually playing the class in different situations, some people will realize that the Magus is far from overpowered and that the constraints required to produce genuinely effective burst damage are still very significant.

But since the arguments made in previous messages seem to be systematically ignored in favor of already established opinions, I don’t see any point in continuing to elaborate further.