The Numbers...Oh god the numbers... : V - Skyrim

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:35 pm

People always trot out the "need to abuse enchant/alchemy" with Destruction - but it is simply not true.

I assure you, from personal experience, a focused Destruction build is not only possible, not only viable, but has been one of my easiest characters. Again, I play on Adept, so I can't speak to Expert/Master difficulty - but then, I've never felt the desire to increase the difficulty with any of my characters. My current Destruction mage has only used enchanted gear he found in the game. I think currently he has a circlet of Destruction and the Arch-mage's robes. What's that, 27% cost reduction? I wouldn't call that min-maxing or 'abuse', would you? And the thing is, it wasn't as if I was running around in a panic before I got that gear... it was nice to have, but it didn't feel like I needed it.

Same thing for Alchemy. I've been working it up, but I think it's still in the 30s, and I have way more potions than I actually use. Fortify Destruction potions are something I chug before a big battle, but not even all the time then. Restore Magicka is a little more important, but you don't need to rely on those as much as many people claim - provided you use sound tactics.

No need for constant Impact spam, either. It just takes serious dedication to Destruction, and a careful, strategic approach to encounters - using all the tools in your box.

For example, many players deride Rune spells as 'useless' at mid-high levels. Not so. With the Rune Master perk, you can cast a rune well ahead of you, down a hallway or into a room which you might suspect contains enemies. The sound of the spell will draw foes out to investigate. Meanwhile, just stand there, let your Magicka refill (which will be quick, because you're not in combat until you're detected), and ready your next spells. Rune gets triggered, you get detected, and you follow up with a dualcast fireball.

Even Flames retains its utility at higher levels. I still have it hotkeyed, and I'm level 20something. Flames. How can it possibly be useful? Well, that 8/sec damage has been boosted by my perks, and dualcasting, to make a good - and incredibly cheap - follow-up to the higher-Magicka spells like Fireball or Incinerate.

Ever notice that staves get better as your Destruction skill gets better? Not only is your use of Destruction staves more efficient as you level up, but the augmented-damage perks also affect the damage of related staves. Sometimes it makes sense to open a fight with a spell or two cast from a staff, then switch to your own spells, to reserve your Magicka. Ditto with scrolls and shouts.

Really, guys, you can't just run through dungeons spamming Incinerate all day and expect to succeed as a mage. And nor should you. If you could, it just wouldn't be fun.

you should play on master and see the damage dealed by a dual fire rune spell to a creature dragur. i guess you gonna laugh a lot. Then use dual exquisite ebony fire and frost enchanted axes with all perks that boots the damge in one-handed weapons included the dual wielding ones, again the same creature dragur... you will laugh even more.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:56 pm

you should play on master and see the damage dealed by a dual fire rune spell to a creature dragur. i guess you gonna laugh a lot. Then use dual exquisite ebony fire and frost enchanted axes with all perks that boots the damge in one-handed weapons included the dual wielding ones, again the same creature dragur... you will laugh even more.

No, I shouldn't play on Master. A couple reasons, not that I need to give any:

1) I still find that Adept gives me a good balance - with any character, warrior, stealth, or mage, I still die occasionally on Adept, but not so often that it's annoying.
2) Spending more time hacking away at bloated sacks of hp doesn't seem like fun to me.

Since I got the game back in December I never have felt the need or desire to increase the difficulty.

But also - and this comes up all the time in these debates - look at the skills you're using with those axes: One-handed, Smithing, and Enchant. I'll grant you, that can make some powerful stuff. But it's not quite a fair comparison to Destruction, is it? I mean, if you want to do that, let's just get our Destruction casting cost down to zero with enchants, and boost the damage to insane levels with alchemy.

I don't min-max. I play the game naturally, as my character would. With my dedicated Destruction mage, I'm able to handle foes easier and with less injury than my dedicated warriors can.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:06 pm

you should play on master and see the damage dealed by a dual fire rune spell to a creature dragur. i guess you gonna laugh a lot. Then use dual exquisite ebony fire and frost enchanted axes with all perks that boots the damge in one-handed weapons included the dual wielding ones, again the same creature dragur... you will laugh even more.

You know that, by playing at difficulties above adept, all you do is gimping yourself?

The only difference between adept and higher level of difficulties is that enemies do twice damage and player half. So you're purposefully imbalancing the game. It's just like playing with an abusive dungeon master that inserts a curse/weakness at every possible occasion.

By all means, everyone is free to play Skyrim the way he like, but gameplay discussions should be based on Skyrim mechanics the way they're supposed to work, not altered in favor/against the player.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:04 am

And yes, theres people who play a mage on master and do great, and thats cool, but mathmatically its extremely inferior.

I play a destruction mage on Master and she kicks ass. BUT, it takes 90%+ buffs to be able to do it. Even at 75% cost reduction from encchanted gear, I can only get about 5-6 dual casts of Icy Spear before my magicka is completely gone (around 500). It's silly.

Finally I just grinded my enchanting all the way to 100 and have 100% cost reduction. So now Destruction works great. But what other skill is like that? I've had conjuration and illusion mages who never needed a single piece of enchanted gear in order to be viable. Some restore magicka potions were all that was needed.

For destruction to work it has to be propped up by not just one, but two other skills.

1. Alchemy. In the beginning you don't have any enchantments and the enchantments you do find/make don't reduce cost enough. So your only alternative is to load up on the restore magicka potions.

2. Enchanting: If you ever want to be able to cast destructions spells as your primary method of attack, you absolutely must have 90%+ cost reduction gear. And the thing is, you don't need just one piece of gear, you need four. For me it's a necklace, ring, cuirass, and helmet.

Again, no other skills are like this. Cast a master illusion spell like Mayhem and yeah, it svcks a lot of magicka up, but there's also time to recover while the enemy is busy killing each other. And with a few potions you can re-cast the spell quickly. The Twin Souls spell in Conjuration; the cost of casting two Dremora Lords just isn't that much. I don't think I've ever needed a potion to restore anything because two summons of any kind occupy every enemy in the room.

Reduce the cost of the spells drastically and get rid of the perk that permits you to stagger everything every time with a dual cast; and then add in one handed casts that can stagger X percentage of the time based on your skill level and number of stagger perks. A dual cast would increase the chances of a stagger but not to 100%.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:42 pm

But why?

Because I think they should.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:22 pm

Bethesda and balance have never been friends, but during Skyrim's deveploment they apparently became enemies :tongue:

If they were enemies during Skyrim's development they were enemies before it as well, Oblivion and Morrowind had a total lack of balance as well. It's hard to even complain about specific balance problems, since it's more that the whole combat system is just a mess than anything else.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:46 pm

You don't actually need specialised anything for it to work, you just need to adapt.

I tried adapting, it was no fun, so I went with enchanting instead.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:25 pm

For destruction to work it has to be propped up by not just one, but two other skills.

1. Alchemy. In the beginning you don't have any enchantments and the enchantments you do find/make don't reduce cost enough. So your only alternative is to load up on the restore magicka potions.

2. Enchanting: If you ever want to be able to cast destructions spells as your primary method of attack, you absolutely must have 90%+ cost reduction gear. And the thing is, you don't need just one piece of gear, you need four. For me it's a necklace, ring, cuirass, and helmet.

This simply isn't true, alchemy isn't needed at all, the damage done by destruction is more than enough, even for master.

You don't need to use enchanting, it's just nice to make your own enchantments. Circlet of peerless dest 25%, master robes 22% and ring of peerless dest 25% results in 72% reduction. So let's look at the expert spells (I completely agree that they cost to much, I'm just proving you don't need enchanting) with a base cost of around 300. You can also enchant your own necklace with no enchanting perks/skill for around 5-7% fortify destruction if used with a brought potion, so that's 80% reduction, but let's work with 72%.

At skill level 100 you have 41% reduction, so that 300 becomes 177. Then halved by the perks to 88, then we can factor in the 72% reduction resulting in 25 per single cast (69 for dual cast). That is a lot yes, but you can take down a draugr deathlord on master with perked destruction in 3-4 dual casted incinerates, so that's 276 magicka for that draugr deathlord (on master).

You try and fight a draugr deathlord with a weapon that isn't smithed to do 150 damage per swing, with armor that isn't smithed to give you 80% physical resistance. Destruction you can use safely from range, with the impact (which is overpowered I know) perk staggering the enemy.

So let's compare it to archery, a decent bow with a decent level of smithing will do 100-120 damage (thats being generous) which is 11-12 hits to take down that deathlord, fired at a pathetically slow rate compared to destro. In a non-sneak situation destruction outclasses archery every time, sneaking is different as you get the 3x boost, but thats useless to non sneak warriors.

But comparing archery with no smithing (remember the only skill we are using here is destruction), the best you will be doing is 70-80 damage, which will result in destruction being even better than sneak archery.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:29 pm

Who has 700 magicka?

People who are actually playing mages?

You know, pick magicka more often?

Also it will only cost around 400, if you can get the master perk.

You see, the higher your skill, the lower the cost, at skill level 100 the cost is halved again (+/- 0.1).

As I've said before, people are missing key components here.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:21 am

derp

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:15 pm

That's why I never upgraded past apprentice/adept spells on my destruction/conjurer pure mage build, even at level 40 on master.

On one hand, it works. On the other hand, I felt very lame.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:13 pm

People who are actually playing mages?

You know, pick magicka more often?

Also it will only cost around 400, if you can get the master perk.

You see, the higher your skill, the lower the cost, at skill level 100 the cost is halved again (+/- 0.1).

As I've said before, people are missing key components here.

So.... Pure Mage or Bust? Can't do a magic knight build?

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:19 pm

You don't need to use enchanting, it's just nice to make your own enchantments. Circlet of peerless dest 25%, master robes 22% and ring of peerless dest 25% results in 72% reduction.

You don't need enchanting, but you do need enchantments. What gripes me is the cost reducing perks in Destruction (not unlike the mage armor perks in Alteration). I just don't feel like I am getting my money's worth from them. So I save those perks and spend them on enchant instead. Cost reduction through enchant would seem to render the cost reducing perks somewhat superfluous.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:29 am

People who are actually playing mages?

You know, pick magicka more often?

Some mage. You would have to be 61st level to get 700 magicka. Unless you grind non magic skills, you will never get to 61st level.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:55 pm

The problem with destruction is the stupidly high cost for adept/expert spells, the damage is fine for master, but you have to solve the magicka problem at high levels.

So when people say 'destruction is weak', it's bull, it's the ridiculously high cost of the higher level spells is the problem.

This is why my Mage's utilize an array of Magica cost decreasing items and items that increase the Magica regen rate over the Increase-base-Magica-score items. The damage is ok, but the cost/regen ratio to base cost way off.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:49 pm

This thread is severely lacking in 'The Main Event' posting and saying destruction magic balance is amazing. I am disappoint. :C

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:51 am

This thread is severely lacking in 'The Main Event' posting and saying destruction magic balance is amazing. I am disappoint. :C

No, Destruction magic is balanced just fine... as long as you take steps to mitigate the absurd cost-damage ratio.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:07 pm

You don't need enchanting, but you do need enchantments. What gripes me is the cost reducing perks in Destruction (not unlike the mage armor perks in Alteration). I just don't feel like I am getting my money's worth from them. So I save those perks and spend them on enchant instead. Cost reduction through enchant would seem to render the cost reducing perks somewhat superfluous.

I enjoy finding my own gear though, enchanting ruins that for me, I do completely agree though.

Someone suggested oblivions destruction mechanics, which was BaseCost*(1.4 - Skill*0.012)=Cost, so at level 100 you have 80% reduction, they should then limit the fortify destruction reduction to 50% IMO.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:34 am

No, Destruction magic is balanced just fine... as long as you take steps to mitigate the absurd cost-damage ratio.

The steps end up breaking it in the opposite direction is the problem. You feel gimp, or you feel like you're exploiting, assuming nothing has changed since I last played anyway.

I remember doing some math on destruction vs. conjuration and summons are immeasurably superior cost : effect wise. A dremora lord could be limited to ~5 attacks and still be a more cost efficient damage option than a high level destruction spell - and obviously summons have the benefit of taking damage off you as well.

With 100% cost reduction though, you just spam everything to death and it ends up being terribly repetitive gameplay as well as lacking in any challenge.

Personally I think the magic system, as well as combat, is pretty hopeless without major overhauls - but of course they could still improve what they've got with simple changes and one of the most obvious options would be a change in spells costs.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:44 pm

I enjoy finding my own gear though, enchanting ruins that for me, I do completely agree though.

Yeah, I understand that. For the first few months after 11/11/11, I refused to perk enchanting for that very reason (plus free casting seemed cheap). I still don't perk enchant for most of my characters because it is more fun to find your own gear. Makes opening chests and visiting merchants fun.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:12 pm

i don't think anyone here who has played a mage is leaving perks and skill out of the equation. These % decreases affect destruction as a whole and the proportions remain the same. Pretty basic math. My point in the op was that spells get an EXPONENTIAL decrease in efficency. Look at it this way dual casting Lighting Bolt does 55 damage and will stun. This costs base 143 magicka. SINGLE casting thunderbolt does 60 dmg, no stun for 343 magicka. At 100 skill and cost perks and it becomes this:
LB(dual)-43 magicka-55 dmg+impact
TB(single)-103 magicka-60 dmg+ a sword in the gut
Over twice the cost for roughly the same damage AND the effect of impact.
BTW the Lighting bolt cost is drastically inflated by dual casting...remember 2.2x dmg, 2.8 times cost.
wtf mate.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:37 pm

you should play on master and see the damage dealed by a dual fire rune spell to a creature dragur. i guess you gonna laugh a lot. Then use dual exquisite ebony fire and frost enchanted axes with all perks that boots the damge in one-handed weapons included the dual wielding ones, again the same creature dragur... you will laugh even more.

I don't understand why people make these kinds of comparisons. So you are comparing the damage of a weapon that uses smithing, enchanting and one-handed skills and perks to the base damage of a fire rune that uses what 3 perks. Do people think that you should be able to dominate as a destruction mage with just a 6-7 perks? I have had no problem with the balance of the destruction magic. Without using exploits you can reduce your mana cost to zero with just the enchantment perks and you can make destruction more powerful with potions and alchemy perks. So don't compare the base damage of destruction spells to the damage of weapons that are buffed up using smithing and enchanting, its comparing apples to oranges.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:23 pm

thee is no proper defence for such a poor ratio of damage to cost. maybe if the cost was up by a large ammount, the cost was lowered by a sizable chunk, we got more mana when we leveled up or NPC mages did not ac like they had border-line unending magicka then our magic would seem worth while, but as-is destruction is more of a burden to anyone rather than a useful skill

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:37 pm

thee is no proper defence for such a poor ratio of damage to cost. maybe if the cost was up by a large ammount, the cost was lowered by a sizable chunk, we got more mana when we leveled up or NPC mages did not ac like they had border-line unending magicka then our magic would seem worth while, but as-is destruction is more of a burden to anyone rather than a useful skill

Wouldn't the fact that you can reduce your mana cost to zero be a reasonable defence?? The damage to cost ratio seems pretty good in that case.

» Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:05 am

spells and weapons are no longer as different as you might think. They are equipped and used in largely the same manner, and for the same purpose. Its not that drastic to compare light armor/2-hand/enchanting to alteration/destruction/enchanting. A melee build would generally use smithing first but smithing is indeed different in functionality to enchanting, but unlike enchanting, it only benefits physical classes ruining the comparision. So, assuming damage min-maxing the 2 handed char would end up with +160 %dmg and the destruction build, infinite casts. Unless you believe stun-locking=intended gameplay mechanic(doubtful) the 2 hander is hands down more powerful. I love that melee is strong though, Its just that destruction lacks similiar potential.