It wasn't removed for balance.

*looks at Skyrim* ... ROFL at balance. Spell Creation made magic, magic. As predicted, its removal has made magic a joke.

Congratulations on fitting the definition of a fool.

This whole argument is foolish. All of you, from every side of the argument, keep repeating the same things and expecting other people's opinions to just change. When they don't, you just discount them and assume they're imbeciles. Never once did any of you, from any side of the argument, consider that the others had any sort of point, that they have the freedom to prefer one over the other, and instead decide that because you MUST always be right, anyone who disagrees with you is lesser than you. You're all idiots, every last bleedin' one of you.

I have an interesting question: who cares if you want spellmaking? Who cares if you don't? it's all opinion, and the only opinion that matters and ever should matter is the artist, the guy making the game. Because let me tell you something; for every two-bit superfan on the face of the earth, there's ten reasonable people who will simply enjoy what they're given, desiring more but never expecting it. Someone who appreciates something for what it is, instead of what they want it to be. You people? You're just an addled minority, the unpleasable base that has killed every wonderful thing that has ever existed.

So again, this thread is full of fools. Each and every one of you.

if you are ROFLing at Skyrim's balance than Oblivion must have killed you and Morrowind was even worse than that

These games have never been about balance but they are about choice without spell creation we do not have the choices we once had.

Nope, magic now matters more because we have less spells and with no spellmaking we no longer have fire damage 20 paralyze 2 seconds, it's just Firebolt for 25 damage plus perk damage.

How does that make it matter more, that is a lack of customization.

We could have had the base spells anyways with spell creation.

Nope. I'm not here to change peoples opinions. Just voice mine in the effort that Beth hears it. The same arguments have been made ad nauseam since it was announced cut. Now its for rhetoric. So no, nothing foolish. You know what is foolish? Calling people names becasue their opinion differs from yours. Your logic is flawed.

Welcome to the club.

Here's the thing, though: could it really be ignored?

In Oblivion, the stock spells were sub-par, to say the least, especially if you were going up against top-end enemies; if you didn't abuse 'Weakness to X' stacking, you were never going to use Destruction to kill much of anything past about level 30 or so. Skyrim doesn't have that issue, as HP pools are an order of magnitude smaller in almost all cases, however it still has the problem of early spell obsolescence; unless they add damage scaling, which, unfortunately, I don't see happening, Spellmaking would be the only way to keep using those spells at higher levels.

If spellmaking is the only way to keep early spells relevant in the late game (assuming they even should be, which is a whole topic by itself), then it would essentially be mandatory for anyone wishing to keep using those spells. Spellmaking would also be the only way to make most Master-level spells actually worth using, since it could be used to either reduce their ridiculous casting times or amp their output to a point commensurate therewith. Given that the major complaints about Destruction are output and Master cast times, not using spellmaking as a counter would essentially mean rejecting the solution to one's complaints, which would be cause to wonder why it was asked for in the first place.

As such, I don't see how it would ever actually be optional, since I doubt anyone would wish to keep using the base spells given the opportunity to have much better versions. The lack of 'Weakness to X' spells means it couldn't be abused into the ground like it was previously, however it would still essentially reduce the stock spells to sources of effects, much like the stock magic items are for Enchanting (with a few exceptions), which isn't good design. That said, I wouldn't object if it was added, since said stock spells are, admittedly, somewhat lackluster, although I would honestly prefer they dropped the mindset of 'good spells must have crippling magicka costs' and reworked them accordingly.

I disagree with the 1st part of your post, Electrocution would still do a lot of damage to higher level enemies, combine that with Magicka potions and you could beat a majority of the enemies outright.

What if sometimes you failed to cast a spell like in Morrowind depending on your skill and the power of the spell. Also what of certain enemies had resistances to certain spells like electric and paralysis.

Perhaps next game.

You can't be serious. "Balance comes before role playing any day of the week"?!?! It's a ROLE PLAYING GAME! Obviously the point of a role playing game is to play a role. Why don't you go play an FPS and stop trying to turn TES into the next Call of Duty?

BALANCE!?!

That my mage can barely scraqe together a couple 100 damage for a spell, but has a dagger doing 2751 damage with an option for another ~450 with poison.


Balance, lol!!!

1. And if Spell Making was still in the game, they'd have the freedom to use it or not. Those of us that don't think it should have been removed, don't have that freedom. Isn't freedom to do something part of a "sand box" game?

2. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the "unpleasable base" that removed key elements of previous TES from Skyrim, which is why we aren't pleased. That "unpleasable base's loyalty gave this series and it's maker life, and has been thrown to the side for the sake of the almighty dollar. I think our displeasure is warranted.

Uldred

Not everyone who plays TES runs like a buck in rut towards every exploit in sight.

None of these games have ever been balanced or exploit free. This one is no different, and the next one will overcompensate for Skyrim's imbalance, and there will be people mourning the loss of smithing and the little love triangle it has with alchemy and enchantment. And the next one will have it's own flaws that the one after that will have to deal with.

And there will always be vultures on the forum circling over the corpse of anyone who happened to have fun with the previous "feature". You can have fun with something without exploiting it.

I hate the fact they took spellmaking out, but if you're going to make patently absurd statements....

Numbers aren't absurd. We had more effects and variety in previous games. Its a numerical fact.

People who abuse game mechanics and/or use exploits have no entitlement at all to discuss "balance".

Thats not the same as having "no variety". All it does is cheapen any argument you may have by making it appear as though you haven't thought about it. Less <> none.

by the gods I wish people would just think about what they're typing.

Who cares? its been said ad nauseum. Now its just rhetoric. And I stand by it. Compared to previous ES games, there is no variety.

i agree

Yes they do.

The whole cry of "Balance" reminds me of Jim Mora's "Playoffs" rant - replacing "Playoffs" with "Balance"
What's that? Ah -- Playoffs? Don't talk about -- playoffs?! You kidding me?! Playoffs?! I just hope we can win a game! Another game!

Uldred

AN INTERESTING TOPIC