Destruction magic at level 50 with no mana cost is still und : V - Skyrim

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:33 am

I am only level 11, I have no info about late game.

If you are completely ignorant to the issue, why are you expressing your opinion about it?

You're level 11. You know nothing.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:41 pm

It said my damage, while both one-handers were equipped, was 422.

>Min/maxing damage out the whazoo through exploits to make your claim

Yeah, you're officially [censored]. If you want to make a comparison, go skill by skill if you're going to whine about a single magic school.

Good lord I wish these threads would stop.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:05 pm

You couldn't me more wrong. I play as a quasi-pure mage. That's the problem. You people don't get it. If you play with one skil, YOU MAKE the game unbalanced.

What other school of magic allows you to kill things other than Conjuration (which is really only good if you invest heavily into the skill and build gear around it)? The system forces a magic user to wear equipment to be viable instead of what is enjoyable or fun. Without also taking 100 enchanting, you have to pick one caster skill to be viable* with, because you have limited gear spaces to make it viable.

*I'd say viable is the ability to kill things your level. If you can't kill something then you're playing the wrong game. There aren't enough options shy of dealing with the shoddy pet or follower AI.

» Sun May 13, 2012 2:19 pm

Yeah, I'm starting to side with the people saying this is overstated. It is true, and it does svck for people who want to use destruction + enchantment as their focal point, but I think Bethesda gets the message. Even if they aren't going to do anything then the CK will enable it to be fixed for PC users.

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:58 pm

You're right. It's useful in the beginning of the game and useless at the end.

You pretty much just summed it up. There is really nothing wrong with destruction other than it stops scaling way too early. It is a viable skill that is quite useful, until later in the game when the lack of damage increase forces you to change your playstyle. When you've invested so much into a skill, it shouldn't just drop off like that.

It just needs to scale a bit higher.

As established on other threads, the fix could be putting a damage/skill modifier. Another solution would be to make Novice/Adept/Expert/Master variations of each spell, like in Oblivion. Making it possible to have enchantments boost your destruction damage a little wouldn't hurt either.

If I had the ability to mod the game, I would do it myself. That still doesn't help the poor S.O.B's that bought the game for console though.

» Sun May 13, 2012 8:53 am

It said my damage, while both one-handers were equipped, was 422.

so thats 211 each. i thought expert level destruction magic with damage increase perk is over 100 no? and since you can dual wield w/o mana problem...isnt that sufficiently comparable? ofcourse you need to select which element to use carefully but many creatures have weakness to some elements so...

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:28 pm

To the people who say you have to use all the other skills to be effective as a pure Mage:

Why should a mage have to spread his points and perks over 5 skills to be effective when a warrior just needs 3 (or 2 if he's doing dual wielding)?

Then there's the issue of how that hypothetical pure mage character would be better if he just dropped Destruction completely, it takes up valuable perks and leveling it makes your enemies stronger without giving you any added benefit, that means at high level destruction is WORSE THAN USELESS, IT'S ACTUALLY A HINDERANCE.

if you've got a character that has conjuration, illusion, restoration and alteration, you're much better off focusing on 1 handed weapons and fighting with a bound sword than destruction. You will do more damage overall, you will have more magicka for your other schools of magic, and you won't be helpless when you run out of magicka.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:20 am

>Min/maxing damage out the whazoo through exploits to make your claim

Yeah, you're officially [censored]. If you want to make a comparison, go skill by skill if you're going to whine about a single magic school.

Good lord I wish these threads would stop.

I don't get your point... I used the best enchants for both. 4 enchants per skill. Seems like a pretty fair comparison to me. Even proves my point more.

Anyone in this thread arguing against me has yet to use destruction at a high level.

» Sun May 13, 2012 8:08 am

What other school of magic allows you to kill things other than Conjuration (which is really only good if you invest heavily into the skill and build gear around it)?

Conjuration.

colddog. You're so right. You know everything. Levelling up is definitely the sign you really know a game, right? That's how we all play it, we just level up as fast as we can.

» Sun May 13, 2012 4:31 pm

Yeah, I'm starting to side with the people saying this is overstated. It is true, and it does svck for people who want to use destruction + enchantment as their focal point, but I think Bethesda gets the message. Even if they aren't going to do anything then the CK will enable it to be fixed for PC users.

Oh and that's the coup de grace of any argument isn't it? More people combined play on consoles than on PC, yet the first answer anyone gets to a problem on these boards is "mod" or "console". How about a completed and tested game?

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:17 am

I don't get your point... I used the best enchants for both. 4 enchants per skill. Seems like a pretty fair comparison to me. Even proves my point more.

Anyone in this thread arguing against me has yet to use destruction at a high level.

Except the enchantments are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. One is flat out increasing the damage you do, while the other is simply allowing you to sustain the same amount of damage over a longer period of time.

The point of comparing [censored] is to keep things weighed in proper balance. Your claim is debunked, and you're dumb as a stump. Please, stop posting.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:23 pm

Conjuration.

colddog. You're so right. You know everything. Levelling up is definitely the sign you really know a game, right? That's how we all play it, we just level up as fast as we can.

When we are directly discussing the damage of destruction at higher levels, then a level 11 player comes in and tells everyone it's fine because he can use flames to kill things easily, it doesn't help anything.

You are completely ignorant of the situation and are unwilling to listen to reason. I don't know why that is.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:06 pm

I know for a fact that Destruction is plenty powerfull at level 43 i don't know what how your playing but you need to increase your health or armor rating or TURN DOWN THE DIFFICULTY SETTING.. Your asertion that Destruction isn't viable at higher levels is not true.

» Sun May 13, 2012 4:21 am

The OP is right in the sense that if you make a generalist mage with Conjuration, Destruction, Illusion, Alteration, Restoration, etc, you'll do well. But then drop Destruction and put in Archery or a weapon skill, and you will make your former performance look laughable.

The Elder Scrolls has always support battle mage type characters and spell sword type stuff, but it doesn't work well anymore in Skyrim. Make a guy who is Heavy Armor, Smithing, Enchanting, Alchemy, and 1-Handed for your attack, and you will crush the game. Hell, even if you don't go too crazy on the enchantment/smithing/alchemy interaction, you'll crush the game. Replace your weapon of choice with ANY other damage skill of choice (bow, 2-handed, dual wielding, etc) and you'll still do great UNLESS you make Destruction your main damage. Then you will be struggling.

Basically, we've done the equivalent of go from 1st edition D&D to 3rd and beyond: Wizards RULE ..... UNLESS you care about direct damage. Then, well not so much, unless you mainly rely on the crowd control and summons and do direct damage as a secondary item. The Warmage / Arcane Damage dealer as a specialty no longer competes, which is sad, and directly contrary to Elder Scrolls lore.

I'm gonna make my Heavy Armor + Destruction guy anyway. I am just fully aware that it will svck eggs compared to Heavy + Weapon, and that the "everything is fine" camp will have no sympathy.

» Sun May 13, 2012 8:04 am

Except the enchantments are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. One is flat out increasing the damage you do, while the other is simply allowing you to sustain the same amount of damage over a longer period of time.

The point of comparing [censored] is to keep things weighed in proper balance. Your claim is debunked, and you're dumb as a stump. Please, stop posting.

You lost all credibility as a debater when you resorted to personal attacks like a child.

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:10 am

Good lord I wish these threads would stop.

The point of comparing [censored] is to keep things weighed in proper balance. Your claim is debunked, and you're dumb as a stump. Please, stop posting.

You're either taking this issue way too personally, or you're a very effective troll. I've noticed you insulting people like this on other threads for doing nothing more than expressing themselves, many of whom don't deserve it.

Just so you are aware, if you're that deeply offended by this topic, there is nothing forcing you to read/participate in the threads.

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:49 pm

You lost all credibility as a debater when you resorted to personal attacks like a child.

>Implying your fallacious use of loaded arguments and claiming it a proper comparison isn't well worth a fallacy back at you

Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about logic and comparisons first before you start to complain about what other people think of your lack of understanding.

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:12 pm

Does it still feel underpowered if you play on adept difficulty?

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:28 am

>Implying your fallacious use of loaded arguments and claiming it a proper comparison isn't well worth a fallacy back at you

Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about logic and comparisons first before you start to complain about what other people think of your lack of understanding.

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:05 am

Does it still feel underpowered if you play on adept difficulty?

Yes. At least that is what I happened to be playing when I noticed it. Keep in mind, I originally came to the forums to comment that I noticed magic was a little weak when I realized there were already 10 or so slimier threads on the go. After reading and testing, I realized the problem was localized to destruction at later levels, which is why I found myself falling back on melee for the tougher opponents.

It isn't a game breaker at Adept, but its a little disheartening. You might just have to fall back on another play-style when you hit 45-50.

Keep your sword handy.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:39 am

You couldn't me more wrong. I play as a quasi-pure mage. That's the problem. You people don't get it. If you play with one skil, YOU MAKE the game unbalanced.

When did I say I want to play with one skill? In previous games I mainly used destruction, alteration, and restoration, as well as conjuration and the other schools of magic occasionally. Now what I don't understand is why people don't understand that it is a big deal when destruction, my main method of inflicting damage just like one-handed/two-handed is for warriors, is completely useless.

» Sun May 13, 2012 12:33 pm

To the people who say you have to use all the other skills to be effective as a pure Mage:

Why should a mage have to spread his points and perks over 5 skills to be effective when a warrior just needs 3 (or 2 if he's doing dual wielding)?

Then there's the issue of how that hypothetical pure mage character would be better if he just dropped Destruction completely, it takes up valuable perks and leveling it makes your enemies stronger without giving you any added benefit, that means at high level destruction is WORSE THAN USELESS, IT'S ACTUALLY A HINDERANCE.

if you've got a character that has conjuration, illusion, restoration and alteration, you're much better off focusing on 1 handed weapons and fighting with a bound sword than destruction. You will do more damage overall, you will have more magicka for your other schools of magic, and you won't be helpless when you run out of magicka.

its same for warrior too. in order for warrior to at least SURVIVE in battle he needs a weapon skill, block, armor and smithing. thats four skills.

with mage if you use three schools of magic say destruction.conjuration and restoration thats three. add in enchanting and another like ilusion or maybe armor skill thats 5.

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:20 am

Except the enchantments are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. One is flat out increasing the damage you do, while the other is simply allowing you to sustain the same amount of damage over a longer period of time.

The point of comparing [censored] is to keep things weighed in proper balance. Your claim is debunked, and you're dumb as a stump. Please, stop posting.

Its the best comparison he can make because Destruction doesn't get nifty +damage enchants like us warriors.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:40 am

Does it still feel underpowered if you play on adept difficulty?

Depends how long you plan on playing. :laugh:

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:02 am

Anyone who comes in here and talks about how they, a level 15-30, have amazing damage as a destruction mage needs to please exit this thread. The fact of the matter is destruction is weak. Don't come in here telling me that "In order to be a mage you need to use the other schools, herp derp". That's not the point either.

At level 50, with my destruction at 100, the 2 perks in augmented flames, with 100% mana cost reduction for destruction (all spells, including master, cost 0) using only master spells, it felt as though i was wasting my time even trying. Even with a mana cost of 0, the spells aren't worth casting. I would go fight mammoths and giants on master and would do little to no damage at all. Then I tried something. With a one-handed skill of 35, no perks in the one-handed tree, I made myself an entire set of armor to boost my one-handed. I then destroyed everything with no trouble at all.

The point is, anyone who says that destruction is fine is wrong. It's a fact that it is underpowered. A fact that is backed by numbers. Anyone can test it for themselves. The results will be the same.

I wanted to be a spell sword. Destruction in my left, one-hander in my right. But it just felt like I was wasting valuable hand space with spells... space I could fill with another sword.

I don't want destruction to be uber powerful like the god-mode that is DW 1handers, I just want it to be viable.

Edit: I'm going to go back to playing the game now. I just wanted to make my case. With so many low level mages arguing that destruction is uber, I thought someone who is well over level 50 should chime in.

Good day, and have fun discussing. I'll reply to any direct quotes tomorrow.

hey, lvl 50 mage here playing at master difficulty and without having 0 zero cost spells enchant stacking (I do have a pretty big reduction tho, coupled with high mana pool and regen).
I enter a room full of mobs can even have 2 or so leaders in the mix, and I have all the non-leaders down by my 3rd or 4rth cast, and finish off while circling and self healing the leaders with localized aoe/single target spells.
my warrior who also isnt using the alchemy/smithing/enchanting exploit (he only has smithing) does fairly more dmg single target but he has way more trouble controlling groups of mobs and killing them all at same time.

people really need to stop using the exploit example to justify destruction being weak.... destruction is awesome tbh