Here's what I think about the debate about the power and balance of magic users. I'll be as objective and honest as I can be. Also, I should apologize to everyone in http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1271852-for-those-who-dont-get-it/page__st__140 from last night. It was very late, I was tired, and frustrated from a long day. Nevertheless, I conducted myself very poorly and replied with a bad attitude. For that, I apologize. Especially to princess_stomper, who bothered to take time out of her day to police the thread instead of closing it. Anyway, onward.

If we profile the basic character archetypes, you could put something together that looks like this:


So here's the point that I really want to get at: Lots of things need to come together to make a "mage," just as many as anyone would need to make a warrior or a thief. So, when you compare the entire set of skills that have to come together to make any one archetype character, you find that none of them can afford to just focus on a single set of skills. I think that is evident enough, and I honestly don't think rational people are arguing that you should be able to excel in this game by focusing exclusively on any one skill.


But, and this is a very big but, we can compare the various "slots" to one another in isolation if we want to. Compare the three primary offense systems, and you find that Warriors > Thieves > Mages (at high level). That is without question, because it is a measured fact that Destruction tops out while the other offense categories do not. So while the warrior and the thief can continue to rely on their primary offense when they get to high levels, the mages must switch to another form of fighting. This, I think, is the critical point of debate for most people. Is this worth patching? I won't say, because that's a matter of opinion and personal priorities.


For me, personally, destruction is a back up skill in the first place, I play mostly thief characters, or light warriors (rogues?) However, what I will say is that this game has a lot of core instability issues and user interfacing problems that should probably be addressed before a large amount of development and play-testing hours are spent on re-balancing the Destruction skill.

TL;DR
I can see how the destruction skill differs from its contemporaries in the other archetypes. However, I'm not convinced that it's worth patching, or at least not immediately.

P.S.
I can also see another argument rising from the cacophony, and that is that there's really no reason for there to be such a hard stop put on destruction magic in the first place. Lore-wise, some say, wizards and mages have the potential to become extremely powerful in the TES universe, but for some reason the player's mage cannot reach such huge power levels. I hear you, I do. It doesn't quite seem consistent. Maybe that's worth a patch, but again, maybe not.

However, and I know this isn't the argument many want to hear, but I firmly stand by it anyway: Adjust the Difficulty Slider. If the mage class is weaker than warriors, why not turn down the slider so that it's easier to toast, blast, and fry your victims the way that you want to? Why can't it be:

Mage - Easy Setting

Thief - Medium Setting

Warrior - High Setting

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, is there? Just set the slider so that you can role-play the character that you want your avatar to be.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1273804-the-bottom-line-with-destruction/page__view__findpost__p__19296873, to be honest.

Adjusting the difficulty slider doesn't do anything about the feeling of gimping yourself every time you equip your Destro spell rather then your Bow.

Not sure I follow you...

You start by explaining in painfull details why Destruction should be equivalent to 1h/2h or to bows, before declaring that it is not ...

And then you conclude that everything is fine?

Seriously man, logic aint your forte, hey?

I didn't conclude anything, that was the whole point. I laid out everything I could see and then just left it at that. I'm not taking sides on this one because it's mostly a matter of preference to begin with. Besides that, if you pay close enough attention, you see that the reason I'm not advocating for a patch is becaues I think there are other patches that should be in the works right now. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, I just don't think it should be a very high priority.

And don't insult my logic please, especially when you read it wrong.

And another thing. The whole basis for my position that destruction shouldn't be patched right away is a cost benefit anolysis. I never thought destruction's plateau was detrimental enough to gameplay in order to give up other potential fixes so that it could be rebalanced.

Someone pointed out in another thread that the fixes to destruction would likely be very small, and probably not even implemented by the same team that fixes programming and stability issues. If that's indeed the case, and adding a few things to destruction wouldn't take away from other patch efforts, then why would anyone advocate for not patching it in? What's the harm in that?

All I see that is needed is either a new set of enchantments that enhance the destructive power of destructive spells, or a new set of spells that sit above the existing set. Given one or both of those fixes, what would the harm be in adding them in?

That's one thing I don't understand about this conflict. If balancing destruction isn't going to take something else away from the game, what's the harm in letting those who want a patch get one?