That is wrong. Intense flames adds crowd control to name one example.

You mean like how paralyzing strike adds paralyze?

Still wrong, my desired outcome was and is to chastise the poster for spewing garbage, What I posted does just that and still, even under your definition, does not fit under the category of irony.

To be as you want you need to demonstrate how what I stated could or will result in the contrary of what I desired. Also I actually do not mind people being sanctimonious or pompous on forums, it gives me a good laugh, I quite enjoy it. What I dislike are people who make crap up and demonstrate poor critical thinking skills. Something you are close to showing.

Let me explain, you focused on "sanctimonious" but seem to be ignoring the focus of the sentence which was "tripe" as indicated by the use of the word with

with - used as a function word to indicate the object of attention, behavior, or feeling

So all of this is about my use of sanctimonious to reinforce my major issue which was the "tripe" the previous poster was spewing. Not his attitude therefore, but his content. So you see my problem even in that sentence was his content, not delivery, I was simply labeling his delivery by the use of sanctimonious. You though, are making sanctimonious the crux of the issue which as seen here I am more than willing to debate but would prefer to get back to the key subject of whether or not destruction magic is broke, which imo it is not.

I don't use smithing/enchanting/alchemy and I have one character who specialized in Destruction. Her Destruction is 3 times here One-handed skill, with a few perks where One-handed has none. She's a lot more fun as a dual sword wielding whirlwind than a Destruction magic flinging mage. The fights feel fair, and go back and forth. Using Destruction as is, is slow, boring, and frankly a pain in the ass. Stunning/stunlocking in a game is so weak and boring it's not funny. How anyone could find that entertaining is beyond me. I just want Destruction do be as fun as non exploited physical weapons are. That's all.



I recommend a nice soft pillow for your desk, it will save the bloody raw patch on your forehead from banging your head repeatedly. It's been and will be argued for ever! I can't believe I'm even delving back into this. I agreed to disagree 2 threads ago.

:ahhh:

Yep, fire has a fear. Also cold has a slow, and lightning drains mana. Not pure damage, but utility which can get overlooked when people want to RP a specific type of elemental mage.

But without supplemental skills other damaging skills don't scale well, too.
For example a non-improved, non-enchanted deadric bow (19 pts. base damage) does only about 60 damage with a full perked archery skill of 100.
So you need a bunch of supporting skills to do adequate damage as well.

Exactly, which is why trying to be a pure (read destruction only no other supporting magic disciplines) mage only is silly. I have stated on other threads, try only using one handed and place no perks and no skills in any armor or sneak, only things like pickpocket, alchemy, etc. See how far you get. I tried it via the console commands PC, it works about as well (less actually) than being a pure destruction mage. That type of warrior gets owned.

To ask someone to stop spewing 'sanctimonious tripe' is to express an intention that they cease being sanctimonious, if only when they are spewing tripe. Certainly, the supervening intention might well have been that they stop spewing tripe altogether, but it is reasonable to assume that people use adjectives for reasons. If you had not wished to express the secondary intention, the one which resulted in the irony I pointed out, you might have refrained from applying the adjective.

Anyway, my intention in my original post was to draw attention to the fact that you were being sanctimonious and thereby cause you to be less sanctimonious. Clearly, I was mistaken in my inference that you were opposed to it, and consequently my efforts have resulted in an outcome contrary to that intention, since you have only become more sanctimonious, and on top of that, rude and belligerent. Needlessly so. Can we calm down now?

I am on the Monkeybiscuit side of the argument. Well, really there are two arguments it seems: from people who want more damage, and from people who want more fun playing pure destruction. They are probably mutually exclusive wishes (what else is new?).

If you are just focusing on destruction, at least you get three different effects to choose from according to your enemy, which each then have a final perk that adds another effect. Whether the spells have enough damage will always be merely a matter of opinion. I think a "pure destruction" mage would be less boring than my hammer warrior who just hits things and they fall over. But there is only so much interest you can put into applying direct damage.

My mage is a generalist similar to Skwors except that I am raising enchanting. I don't have dual casting for anything. My most used destruction spells have been runes and now walls. Runes have saved my life several times. My first fight against a Dwemer Centurion was me running madly around a pillar dropping runes, since anything powerful kills me in one or two hits (I like it this way). When my hammer warrior did the same battle at roughly the same level, he went up to the Centurion and hit him four times, and he died. The destruction fight was way more fun.

I think destruction needs to have its cost/damage ratio looked at, maybe buffed a little...but in no way should it be buffed up to where melee/bows are at the moment. In my opinion, melee/bows can do with a nerf or two.

HAHAHA wee this is fun, again no your original intention was to point out I was being ironic and unaware of it, ergo your post "the irony is underlined." Yes I was being sanctimonious, NO i was never ironic, I was fully aware of what I was doing and what my intended consequences could be, even to the point of becoming more sanctimonious just as you described. So we see again irony = no, sanctimonious = yes. Why, Becuase nothing unintentionally or contradictory occurred within the context of my post.

Yes I labeled the tripe sanctimonious and THEN went on to describe the TRIPE I found irritating and even offered up a statement of my game play to disprove the "TRIPE" not the sanctimony. Simple reading comprehension would typically lead a person to understand it was the 'TRIPE" I had an issue with and not the sanctimony since it was the "tripe" I went on to discuss in detail and refute.

Ahhh but this is the internet and it is much easier to pick a word or phrase and run a tangent as opposed to read the actual content and respond to the content. The content being destruction magic is not broke.

This ^^^^ melee damage is currently to aggressive from my point of view.

Also I think dragons need buffed and trolls/giants and some boss encounters debuffed compared to dragons. Very few encounters should be harder than a dragon as far as I am concerned, right now dragons are one of the lowest mobs I worry about in this game. Now surprise me in a tight room with 2 trolls and I am gonna sweat big time.

So you're the authority on my intentions as well as your own? That's good to know.

Anyway, your intentions really are immaterial, and you are incorrect to suggest that I was pointing out that you were 'being ironic'. I was pointing out that your post generated irony. The irony was generated because a reasonable reader of your original post would infer the intention I described (if only as a secondary intention), and that inferred intention implied an expectation which was contrary to the outcome. Irony. It's immaterial that the bulk of your post was dedicated to refuting his 'tripe', because your post need not have been motivated by a single intention, and as I have pointed out, a reasonable reader would infer at least two intentions. To the reasonable reader, an irony was perceptible, because people other than you had access only to the intentions expressed in your text; an irony might not have been perceptible to you, because you had access to your actual intentions.

In any event, you are incorrect to suggest that my primary intention was to point out the irony. Pointing out the irony was a vehicle for effecting my primary intention: getting you to stop being sanctimonious. Didn't work.

It's nice of you to point out that on the internet it's easier to pick a word or phrase and run a tangent, because that's exactly what you've been doing throughout this argument. That and a lot of ad hominem attacks.

I've clearly failed in achieving what I wanted to achieve, so I'm going to bow out of this argument. Getting you to be civil seems to be a lost cause. You can have the last word and chalk it up as a victory if you like (I'm sure you will), but I wonder what you think you've achieved. You haven't made yourself look intelligent; you haven't made yourself look like a decent or intellectually honest person; you haven't even forced me to leave this thread faster than I otherwise would have. You did waste a bit of my time and made me despair a little bit more about the state of humanity, so I guess you achieved some measure of troll-hood. 'gratz. People will give your opinions lots of extra weight now.

Folks keep leaving off the "for damage dealing" part of this statement. Of course you need support skills. And Illusion is available to any character, not just characters who want to use destruction as their primary form of damage dealing.

And what else can you do with destruction besides dual wield some spell over and over again? At my level no other spells are valid except the expert level spells, and even then they still do such poor damage that if it weren't for the impact perk (which requires that you dual wield) I would be dead in a minute because I could never kill anything before it got to me. The very existence of impact is an abomination because in that one perk destruction becomes ridiculously easy and boring at the same time. No worrying about survival ever again, because you can just take 5 minutes to slowly tickle things to death while they stand there and take it.

I want more damage for destruction so that it can compete with other damage types, which can be accomplished through spell scaling which also gives the added effect of being able to use ALL of my destruction spells, thereby solving the problem of only using one destruction spell. In return I want removal or severe nerfing of impact, and the combination of these things will make destruction fun again.

Because face it, if destruction isn't fun on its own, it isn't going to be fun no matter how many other trees and perks I use (and I do use them). It will always be the red-headed stepchild to 1H/2H/archery, the actual, viable damage types.

:rofl: You are a riot, who again posted this? About a post you were not even originally involved in.

"The irony is underlined"

Now you go on a diatribe about how I couldn't know your intentions and claiming add hominems while you challenge my intelligence in the following paragraph, WOW :thumbsup: ? Seems to me you made the first assumption there sweetheart :lmao: .

As I've said earlier, the problem isn't about destruction being underpowered, but more the melee skills being overpowered. On master at high levels, even with only using a single crafting skill (smithing in my case, I don't craft magic stuff, and I don't create potions although I'll use what I find) 80-90% of my gaming I can do without putting any thought behind it.

Just be grateful you have a difficulty slider that still works. Why be envious of us melee fighters who can't get a challenged game anymore? I really don't get this...

As far as power distribution (and play style I guess):
* Melee can be really hard at low levels, but no mages complain here.
* On high levels melee is far to easy while using few boosters, but mages complain.

Playing "pure" I would expect things to go nuts hard on master. If it isn't, then it becomes nuts easy for combination mages which I believe is the intended play style (use the game). Even for fighters playing "pure", the game would be impossible on master, since we have to rely on several skills for survivability.

The problem is that some players want to play a 'pure' elemental build and feel that, according to that archetype, they should be able to do tremendous damage as their modus operandi. That's how they imagine that archetype. They don't care about the support skills because those skills don't mesh with the kind of character they want to roleplay. They want to play a character who essentially only does a lot of damage but isn't necessarily good at anything else. The issue is a role-playing/fun issue. If it's affecting your enjoyment of the game, it's worth investigating if it can be improved.

For the record, the game is playable with any combination of skills/perks.

Playable, but not necessarily fun! (For some, yes, long drawn out tedious battles are fun.)

Again, without using enchanting/smithing/alchemy, I have a blast with my physical characters. The combat flows, with ebbs and tides. Magic flows like molasses in the winter!

P.S.

Magic needs to be as fun to!

Another post I whole hardheartedly agree with.

Keep in mind purists role players, nexus already has patches that will allow you to play like this if you want. There are several top notch magic patches that balance destruction nicely, some allow casting more than one rune trap and others that add new summoned creatures, more destruction damage spells, summoned daggers, etc. This game was designed for just that, community mods, and come Jan those mods will be even easier to use since Steam will support them.

Message here, if you don't like how the game plays on PC mod it, the game was designed for that. Console players sorry you are SOL, go buy a pc version is the best advice I can offer.

Yeah, The point of destruction is to DESTROY things. Support skills are nice and all, but they're SUPPORT. I shouldn't have a summon that does more damage than my fireballs if i've put equal effort into both trees.

I really really hate it when people assume that a "pure destruction" mage is a mage that only uses destruction spells and nothing else. They're not. A pure destruction mage is one that uses only destruction as a means of damage - they still can and do use other trees like illusion, alteration, restoration, or even armor trees.

The point is, any character can get any perk they want, magic and melee/archery alike. In other words, mages and warriors can get the same perks if they want. The thing is, a destruction mage with X set of perks will always be worse than, say, an archer with the same X set of perks. The point being, no matter how many abilities other than destruction the destruction mage uses, he will be outdone by any other damage type using the same combination. And that needs fixing. No one wants to play with JUST destruction, as in using one tree for 50+ levels. That would be ridiculous.

Your statement IMO supports nerfing melee damage over buffing up destruction damage. Melee damage grows to much in relation to level in my view. I am not stating this as fact just as personal opinion.

My Archer / Conjurer is much fun

My destro / conjurer / illusion mage is also fun

My 2H Orc warrior is fun too

Stop overanolyzing everything and just play! I think some of yall need to take a break or re-roll a diff type of character. I havent even dabbled in sneak yet or finished the MQ and all my chars are around level 30. I dont burn out because there is so much variety. if i feel like disintegrating forsworn i will get on my mage. If i feel like decapitating people i will play my Warrior. If i feel like hanging back while my Frost Atro tanks and sniping drauger I will play my Archer. Its super fun and i plan on finishing the main quest for all these guys and different faction quests for each.

Saving the thief kitty for last and he is going to be the single worst thing to ever happen to Skyrim. The country will be robbed blind. Woohoo!

And what you're overlooking is the fact that this forces mages to play a certain way! So much for play as you like if you want to be viable - in a single player game...