Destruction versus One Handed: Statistics : V - Skyrim

» Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:11 am

I'd say the glass cannons are more the sneaky ones here. That being right or wrong isn't for me to say.

To be clear I'm NOT saying the notion of a pure mage being broken is wrong, I'm questioning the evidence presented, the thought process behind the idea of that class and the ramifications of changing it.

This will be perhaps overly brief (I've got work to do

) but if destruction was buffed to the point where being a 'pure' destruction mage was perfectly viable and could compete with melee would we not then see the absolute trivialisation of content to mages who used all the schools? I do not recall seeing any dispute that the other mage schools do fine, even at master - therefore *surely* changing destruction would risk giving them too waaaay much power? As a poor anology it would be like a naked 2H warrior being made viable, imagine what would happen when people took that power and slapped it in massive armour.

[Yes, one could say don't use it and I'd agree, but look at the smithing complaint threads >.< ]

Unfortunately I think "don't use it" is a perfectly valid argument in this case, bearing in mind that Conjuration is already an extremely powerful offensive skill (bizarre in itself, given that it's nominally a defensive magic), and it can be used in conjunction with One-handed, Two-handed and Archery. I haven't seen any complaints that this gives characters "waaaay too much power."

Fact is, Destruction is a direct-damage-dealing skill, and it deals a ridiculous degree less damage than the other direct damage skills (One-handed, Two-handed, Archery), and even less than Conjuration, a defensive/support skill.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the effectiveness of other skills or how they can supplement Destruction, because those same skills can be used to supplement any of the GOOD direct-damage skills, with far more effective results.

» Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:25 am

I'd say the glass cannons are more the sneaky ones here. That being right or wrong isn't for me to say.

To be clear I'm NOT saying the notion of a pure mage being broken is wrong, I'm questioning the evidence presented, the thought process behind the idea of that class and the ramifications of changing it.

This will be perhaps overly brief (I've got work to do

) but if destruction was buffed to the point where being a 'pure' destruction mage was perfectly viable and could compete with melee would we not then see the absolute trivialisation of content to mages who used all the schools? I do not recall seeing any dispute that the other mage schools do fine, even at master - therefore *surely* changing destruction would risk giving them too waaaay much power? As a poor anology it would be like a naked 2H warrior being made viable, imagine what would happen when people took that power and slapped it in massive armour.

[Yes, one could say don't use it and I'd agree, but look at the smithing complaint threads >.< ]

I think this is a really valid point.

No one is acknowledging the fact that in order to get that super high damage, a one-handed player must take 3 full perk trees (one-handed, enchanting, and smithing). It's not exactly fair to compare the effectiveness of one player with one set of perks and another with three sets of perks. Of course the player with three will be better!

Thus, I think it does make sense to compare weapon damage effectiveness with destruction + a couple other magic schools effectiveness. Yes, the mage's damage output will be significantly lower, but he will also have used way fewer of his perks increasing his damage, so he will have a ton of 'free' perks in this context to use on other stuff. And certainly a mage using fully perked conjuration and illusion magic could compete in effectiveness with a perked out weapon user.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:45 am

What about the fact that fire weakens enemies, hence the next hit does more damage?

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:48 pm

Edit to add: @Sammuthegreat

Yes, however I also think "don't use it" is perfectly valid in the stupid exploited smithing/alc/enchant combination, but there's a massive thread or twelve that would suggest a bunch of others disagree.

The only subject that rivals destruction complaints are complaints about the combo above

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:06 am

I'd say the glass cannons are more the sneaky ones here. That being right or wrong isn't for me to say.

To be clear I'm NOT saying the notion of a pure mage being broken is wrong, I'm questioning the evidence presented, the thought process behind the idea of that class and the ramifications of changing it.

This will be perhaps overly brief (I've got work to do

) but if destruction was buffed to the point where being a 'pure' destruction mage was perfectly viable and could compete with melee would we not then see the absolute trivialisation of content to mages who used all the schools? I do not recall seeing any dispute that the other mage schools do fine, even at master - therefore *surely* changing destruction would risk giving them too waaaay much power? As a poor anology it would be like a naked 2H warrior being made viable, imagine what would happen when people took that power and slapped it in massive armour.

[Yes, one could say don't use it and I'd agree, but look at the smithing complaint threads >.< ]

Buffing Destruction would not severely disrupt the balance, especially when taking into consideration the other schools of magic. Because you can train any skill in any direction you'd like, it's already possible, for instance, to play a melee character with Conjuration that can far exceed the capabilities of a Destruction mage. The only thing we're asking about the "viability" of the Destruction mage is for it to be competent at dealing damage, and for there to be actual options when it comes to picking what spells to use in a given scenario, rather than spamming the same spell over and over.

This is simply an anolysis of how effective Destruction is at dealing damage when compared to other options, and what kinds of synergies benefit Destruction compared to other skills. Yes, this can be considered anolyzing skills in a vacuum, but there's still validity to the points being made based on damage and synergy with other skills (like Smithing, Enchanting, and Alchemy). A lot of people try to come up with methods to show how Destruction can still be viable, but the problem lies in the fact that these very same methods can be used by other skills to be just as, if not more, effective in the same situations. In addition, the extremes of min/maxing skew the perception of how effective these skills are. You could, for instance, completely negate the cost of magicka for spells, or enhance weapons to the point of one-shotting creatures. The end-result of this brokenness should not be used as an argument for the validity of a skill, for surely there's more to the experience of using the skill throughout the levels before it becomes "broken". If anything, these extreme abuses should be reduced, but I highly doubt we will see that outside of some player-made mod.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:55 pm

There is no reason to REMOVE any ways to become broken; some people enjoy that type of gameplay. At the same time, however, no class should be forced to play a certain style to succeed- the basis of TES games is the freedom you have in the world.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:15 pm

Oh I forgot that you can get mana free spells in 2 schools even without any potioned enchanting *exploits*.
There are 4 pieces of equipment that you can enchant with fortify .
Using only enchanting with 8 perks in it, you can get 25% magic school mana consumption. 4x 25%, you do the math.

Also theoretically you can save 4 perk points in the destruction tree with 4 enchantments, as runemaster only effects 1 lower level spell type.

So at augmented flames 2/2, novice destruction, destruction dual casting, and impact you'll be doing as much damage with maximum efficiency.

So at level 27 you can have 2 maxxed out mana free schools.

http://skyrimcalculator.com/#2599

Damn.. after realizing this I think I'm going to reroll another mage to achieve this:

http://skyrimcalculator.com/#2601

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:46 am

Leveling enchant to 100 is damn boring though XD That and Smithing which is more acceptable don't feel like skills that naturally level as you go. It feels like forced grinding to get them up.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:29 pm

Oh I forgot that you can get mana free spells in 2 schools even without any potioned enchanting *exploits*.
There are 4 pieces of equipment that you can enchant with fortify .
Using only enchanting with 8 perks in it, you can get 25% magic school mana consumption. 4x 25%, you do the math.

Also theoretically you can save 4 perk points in the destruction tree with 4 enchantments, as runemaster only effects 1 lower level spell type.

So at augmented flames 2/2, novice destruction, destruction dual casting, and impact you'll be doing as much damage with maximum efficiency.

So at level 27 you can have 2 maxxed out mana free schools.

http://skyrimcalculator.com/#2599

Damn.. after realizing this I think I'm going to reroll another mage to achieve this:

http://skyrimcalculator.com/#2601

this is just basing the whole thing on endgame low cost casts, simply put destruction does not do enough damage

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:50 pm

Well the OP is so way off base I don't even know where to begin.

I guess I'll start with the fact that you can eliminate all mana usage for 2 schools with enchanting. That is to say, free spellcasting, 100% efficiency 24/7.

You realize that you kind of pointed out a major flaw of the game? Magic skill leveling only decreases magicka consumption so its much better to get enchantments, then actually level. To me this screams that there needs to be a patch.

It's obvious that this is broken when you can use enchanting to completely void any benefit leveling two schools gives...

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:50 pm

So, about 4x damage for melee vs range? Range which also drops mana/stamina? And the melee includes smithing/enchanting/alchemy?

I do not actually see that as that far off from balance honestly. I mean, you have a melee character focusing purely on damage with 3 skills to back up this linear attack approach against a range user who has side effects with their attack and has only focused on one school... And maybe you could just grab 75% reduction in cost if you feel 100% is to much of an exploit? (Agree there honestly..).

I think the main problems for Destruction is its limited spell options that simply fade away at higher levels rather than anything else.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:15 pm

31 mage.

Pure destruction + Restoration for the ills.

Creatively.. Well, I don't have silent casting so I can't set up rune traps without getting heard.
Even if the rune trap goes off it doesn't dent the +1 or +2 mobs.
Once mobs know you're there, you have three threats: The humpers, the pokers, and the yous. If the humper is the +2 and he has minions, you're screwed. Pokers (bowmen) are rarely +2s. If the you (mage) is the +2, odds are everything you kill is coming back, so it's a game of "Can I stagger the mage while I'm getting beaten by minions", because if you try to kill the minions you'll run out of magicka way before you get to the boss.
Stagger is OP, unless there's more than one +1/+2 mob, or if that mob has more health than you have magicka.
You either have to use companions and single-target spells (CAREFULLY), or no meatshield and AOE spells, hoping you kill +0/+1 minions fast enough.
If, unlike most situations, you are out in the open, it becomes a game of "Can I outrun/kite the humpers long enough to kill them". Unless you get one-shotted by the pokers, which are now +1's at least. This happens often. [censored] bandit archers.

In the end, I've had to rely on AI and/or pathfinding glitches a lot of the time.

I play a mage in lots of games. I haven't found how to play destro focus well at all. There may be a way, but it doesn't really work until you have the USEFUL skills in the other trees, like frost astronarch, or 4x armor, or silent casting, etc. Which (usually) put you behind severely in destro.

And, this is just my experience. I'm sure other people have different experiences.

Now excuse me while I go roll a Heavy Armor/Conjuration orc.

Thanks for the entertaining description. You helped me better understand the frustration that some Destruction mages experience. :tops:

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:46 pm

You realize that you kind of pointed out a major flaw of the game? Magic skill leveling only decreases magicka consumption so its much better to get enchantments, then actually level. To me this screams that there needs to be a patch.

It's obvious that this is broken when you can use enchanting to completely void any benefit leveling two schools gives...

It's broken when a mage can forget about his mana bar and go for FPS style gameplay.

» Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:09 am

Oh I forgot that you can get mana free spells in 2 schools even without any potioned enchanting *exploits*.
There are 4 pieces of equipment that you can enchant with fortify .
Using only enchanting with 8 perks in it, you can get 25% magic school mana consumption. 4x 25%, you do the math.

Also theoretically you can save 4 perk points in the destruction tree with 4 enchantments, as runemaster only effects 1 lower level spell type.

So at augmented flames 2/2, novice destruction, destruction dual casting, and impact you'll be doing as much damage with maximum efficiency.

So at level 27 you can have 2 maxxed out mana free schools.

http://skyrimcalculator.com/#2599

Damn.. after realizing this I think I'm going to reroll another mage to achieve this:

http://skyrimcalculator.com/#2601

This line of thought is what make people think "destruction is fine". -100% mana cost completely removes a core gameplay mechanic, a mage can actually put all point into HP after around 300 magicka and spam spells from 2 schools like theres no tomorrow, forgetting ANY mana regen bonus (consist of top tier perks/gear opts/even a race's special ability). Yes, spamming spell mindlessly like that might help with abysmal low output of destruction if you happen to choose it as your main DPS tool, but its kind of forcing those people going for enchanting if they want to have fun in late game.

No wonder Bestheda outright refused any notion of Co-op in TES. It never works with this questionable balancing.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:14 pm

You are supposed to lower the mana cost of spells significantly. How much is too much? With expert destruction robes, and 3 destruction enchantments, and destruction mana reduction perks, your spells will cost 2.5% the original mana cost of the spell, which equates to a 31 mana firestorm, 73 mana dual casted firestorm.

So you MUST absolutely MUST utilize enchanting just to be able to CAST firestorm. I costs 1222 mana to cast, perks only bring that down to 611 mana. Expert robes of destruction brings that to 550 mana.

Do you think that a 150 damage spell is supposed to use up your whole mana pool? Do you think Beth intended you to not enchant fortify destruction?

No, it is explicitly clear that you are supposed to use enchantment as a mage, otherwise there would be no master spells, you couldn't afford to cast them.

Next you get to decide whats the right amount of mana usage? Because 100% efficiency isn't an exploit at all, its very easily attainable.

So the 2.5% base mana cost is the lowest you can get it (without exploiting fortify enchantment potion) without lowering the cost to 0%. 73 mana is still a LOT of mana btw, and can eat up your mana pool pretty quickly.

If you use archmage robes + 3 fortify enchantments + perks, then destruction spells end up costing 5% base mana cost, or 146 mana firestorms.

Any fewer than 3 enchantments and your destro spells cost 15% base mana cost, and it costs your entire mana pool to dual cast a firestorm. Again, do you think Beth intended these master tier spells to use up your entire mana pool?

Use your heads, its pretty clear that destruction mages are supposed to use 4 enchantments to lower the cost of your destruction spells. If you've got really ridiculously good fortify enchanting potions then you can probably get away with only having 3.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:53 pm

So the 2.5% base mana cost is the lowest you can get it (without exploiting fortify enchantment potion) without lowering the cost to 0%. 73 mana is still a LOT of mana btw, and can eat up your mana pool pretty quickly.

That's not true.

You are making some incorrect assumptions. First there are 4 slots you can enchant with 100 enchanting you get 25% cost reduction with a grand soul. With 4 pieces capable of taking 2 enchants each you have a total of 8 -25% cost enchants possible. It only takes 4(2 with magicka cost perks) to reduce cost to 0. It is completely unnecessary to use the 32% enchant potions to abuse things in this case. Also drop the robe... it's an awful item... put some damn armor on.

So, about 4x damage for melee vs range? Range which also drops mana/stamina? And the melee includes smithing/enchanting/alchemy?

I do not actually see that as that far off from balance honestly. I mean, you have a melee character focusing purely on damage with 3 skills to back up this linear attack approach against a range user who has side effects with their attack and has only focused on one school... And maybe you could just grab 75% reduction in cost if you feel 100% is to much of an exploit? (Agree there honestly..).

I think the main problems for Destruction is its limited spell options that simply fade away at higher levels rather than anything else.

Um... 4x? It's at least 10x.

The main problems are this:
Destruction damage is awful... on master difficulty you simply don't have the time to sit around and cast for 10 minutes to kill things. It needs to scale much better.
Requires you to reduce magicka costs to 0 on higher difficulty. As before because of your bad damage you need to cast a LOT and higher level spells use incredible amounts of magicka. You simply must have 0% cost to function properly unless you like crippling yourself for a challenge.
The above effectively requires you to now use enchanting.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:52 am

If I'm expected to couple enchanting with destruction just to make it viable at higher level, then the game isnt worth playing anymore

So for now I'm thinking of it as a designer oversight.

Use your heads, its pretty clear that destruction mages are supposed to use 4 enchantments to lower the cost of your destruction spells. If you've got really ridiculously good fortify enchanting potions then you can probably get away with only having 3.

I dont mind you insulting me, I'm mature enough to not get upset by that. But, how can you justify the presence of -cost perks in the talent trees, esp. @100 skill lvl? Shouldnt they do away with those perks and replace them with utility talents like alter tree, since you are EXPECTED to swing spells around with ZERO cost anyway? How can you justify the fact that -100% cost can be applied for all shools, like to the vastly superior conjuration skill (even though its completely unnecessary)?

Bes is notorious for their balancing act, so far I'm not surprised. Its more to the fact that I have to limited my ability to certain trees in Skyrim, and I only discovered Destro's inferiority after reaching master skill level.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:40 pm

@ Hoki: I completely agree with you! 1200 magicka cost is absolutely insane, there's no way that bethesda meant for people to use that without the perk as well as some enchanted gear. The trouble is that the difference between balanced and broken can be as little as 5%. One petty soul ring can cross that border.

The mechanic itself is flawed; the more of a specific thing you have, the more powerful each consecutive enchantment becomes. The first 25% reduction reduces magicka cost by the 25% stated, but then the next one reduces it by 33% of your new magicka cost. The next one reduces it by 50% of your new magicka cost, and the last one alone reduces it by 100% of your new magicka cost.

If it worked so that each one reduced the altered magicka cost by the same percentage, it wouldn't be broken, at all. In fact, most robes could be made more powerful, making lower level spells even more viable.

For example, if it worked the way i want it to, then the first 25% enchantment would work just like it does now.

Base Magicka Cost: 100
Magicka Modifier: 25%
New Magicka Cost: 75.

After this, however, the new magicka cost would be considered, rather than the base magicka cost. So the next 25% enchantment would be like this:

New Magicka Cost: 75
Magicka Modifier: 25%
New New Magicka Cost: 56.25

See how this is going? Now, for the third enchantment:

New New Magicka Cost: 56.25
Magicka Modifier: 25%
New New New Magicka Cost: 42.1875
...New New New New Magicka Cost: 31.64
......New New New New New Magicka Cost: 23.73
.........New New New New New New Magicka Cost: 17.80
............New New New New New New New Magicka Cost: 13.35

See, it would never reach zero, but it would get progressively closer and closer, while retaining balance. With this system, the enchanting values would probably need to be raised by 20-40%, however, to keep them useful at higher levels. If you had 4 piece of 30% reduction gear with this system, for example, you would end up with 24% magicka use. With 4 pieces of 40% reduction gear, you would end up with 12.96% magicka use. Finally, with 50% reduction gear you would end up with 6.25% magicka use. These numbers are low enough to make mastery level spells accessible, without breaking the game in the process.

Honestly, I don't understand why bethesda didn't do this from the start.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:29 pm

One handed is significantly better.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:50 pm

You can't exactly say that it's an advantage that mage's have a ranged attack. There's no such thing as a mage (assuming you're using robes) in melee. There's a dead mage in melee, but that's about it. You are at range not getting hurt by your enemies, because YOU DIE IN ONE HIT.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:50 pm

Use your heads, its pretty clear that destruction mages are supposed to use 4 enchantments to lower the cost of your destruction spells. If you've got really ridiculously good fortify enchanting potions then you can probably get away with only having 3.

If this weren't Bethesda you might have a point. If it is intended though it is even more moronic than before. To think they would intentionally design something that horrible is hard to accept. But hey game/rule design fails are part and parcel of Bethesda games.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:13 pm

That's not true.

You are making some incorrect assumptions. First there are 4 slots you can enchant with 100 enchanting you get 25% cost reduction with a grand soul. With 4 pieces capable of taking 2 enchants each you have a total of 8 -25% cost enchants possible. It only takes 4(2 with magicka cost perks) to reduce cost to 0. It is completely unnecessary to use the 32% enchant potions to abuse things in this case. Also drop the robe... it's an awful item... put some damn armor on.

Um... 4x? It's at least 10x.

The main problems are this:
Destruction damage is awful... on master difficulty you simply don't have the time to sit around and cast for 10 minutes to kill things. It needs to scale much better.
Requires you to reduce magicka costs to 0 on higher difficulty. As before because of your bad damage you need to cast a LOT and higher level spells use incredible amounts of magicka. You simply must have 0% cost to function properly unless you like crippling yourself for a challenge.
The above effectively requires you to now use enchanting.

Should you really be able to one shot on master no Destruction is not broken on novice apprentice or adept.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:57 pm

That's not true.

You are making some incorrect assumptions. First there are 4 slots you can enchant with 100 enchanting you get 25% cost reduction with a grand soul. With 4 pieces capable of taking 2 enchants each you have a total of 8 -25% cost enchants possible. It only takes 4(2 with magicka cost perks) to reduce cost to 0. It is completely unnecessary to use the 32% enchant potions to abuse things in this case. Also drop the robe... it's an awful item... put some damn armor on.

Um... 4x? It's at least 10x.

The main problems are this:
Destruction damage is awful... on master difficulty you simply don't have the time to sit around and cast for 10 minutes to kill things. It needs to scale much better.
Requires you to reduce magicka costs to 0 on higher difficulty. As before because of your bad damage you need to cast a LOT and higher level spells use incredible amounts of magicka. You simply must have 0% cost to function properly unless you like crippling yourself for a challenge.
The above effectively requires you to now use enchanting.

My point is that you have limited options. You can simply do 0% for 2 different schools, 2.5% with a dedicated expert robe, 5% with archmage robes, or 1% with 32% enchanting potions. (3 x 33%)
Those are your options: 0%, 1%, 2.5%, 5%, or a [censored] ton of mana potions. If you want to play destruction you have to pick one.
I plan to go with 1% for destruction and illusion, and 22% in alteration, which is only possible with the ridiculous enchanting potions.

For those who think no mana cost is bad, you can easily do 5% and look like a pimp with archmage robes and 3x 25% enchantments. You'll still need to chug mana pots though for long fights.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:00 am

100 skill in destro, maxed master level perk, 50% more shock dmg, desintegrate - NAKED mage no robes,capes and other gear.
Lightning Storm - 112,5 dmg per second for 47 mana
162% dmg to destruction spell potion for 60 sec (custom pot)
100% weakness to magic poison for 30 sec (vendor pot)

Drink the destro pot and shot a poison arrow into a blood dragon (3,4k HP)
Use Lighting Storm for 112,5x2x2,62 = 589 dmg per second for 47 mana
After 5 seconds go collect your dragon bones :toughninja:

As long as you enchanted gear dosnt hit 100%++ mana reduction its not exploiting. Mana reduction dont stack to destruction perk mana reduction or the skill based reduction.

So being 100 in skill gives you 20% less mana cost ([base lvl thunderbolt / 100 skill no perk thunderbolt - 1] * 100).
Perk in mastery gives 50% yet the total mana cost reduction isnt 70% (30% spell cost) its actualy 50%+[(100%-50%)*20%]=50%+[50%*20]= 60% (40% spell cost)
Now add to that the arch-mage robes and you get +15% reduction in destruction thats total 60%+[(100%-60%)*15%]=60%+6%=66% less mana on spells (34% spell cost).

So using mastery level perks is a must actualy without 100% mana reduction enchants.

Read for basic math on weapons stamina use http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1279078-2419-armor-6399-damage-using-smithing-alchemy-enchanting-only-33-perks-329k-backstabs-post-3/page__view__findpost__p__19432824

If you want a fair math here then (still this is so biast in favour of meele 1vs1):

Stock Deadric sword 21 dmg (100 one handed skill) with perk 42 (armsman 5/5), dual sword power attack 126 dmg (21x2x2x1,5) a hit
Destro lighting storm master level 112.5 dmg with 47 mana usage per second.

We skip the realistic values of health:stamina of meele and magica of mage and go with the bogust 500 stamina and 500 mana values.
we go with 4 dual power attacks in favour of meele ( 72x2x0.75=108 stamina per power attack )

500 stamina gives us 4 dual power attacks that gives us 126dmg x 4 = 504 dmg per stamina bar
500 mana gives us 10 seconds of spell attack that gives 112.5 dmg x 10 = 11125 dmg per mana bar

Conclusion for non-mage race: 504 meele dmg << 1125 destro dmg

normal attacks take 65 mili-second to swing (altough Im not sure this works in an INT value, yes the animtion might be faster but is the dmg really too) one sword so we`re doing a constant 65 dmg per second.
spell dmg does 112.5 dmg per second but only for 10 seconds.

Conclusion for any mage race: 65 meele DPS <<< 112.5 destro DPS

There is the penalty of mana running out after 10 seconds but we are fighting one oponent and we are gonna kill him anyway if hes 1k health,
This dosnt take into account the value of disintegrate that kills an enemy that has less than 20% health. ( if enemy has 1k hp then he dies instantly if he falls below 200 hp, bonus of 200hp less dmg to deal per enemy )
Doesnt take into value racial bonus of 50 magica, with it the mana bar dmg would be 1237 dmg per mana bar.
This conclusion dosnt take into account +magica gear (to be fair, really :spotted owl: ) and makes the mage naked while the meele build uses armor to not get 1 hit kill in close range combat :hubbahubba:

If we want to be a bit more fair then

500 stamina gives us 4 dual power attacks that gives us 126dmg x 4 = 504 dmg per stamina bar
550 mana gives us 10 seconds of spell attack that gives 112.5 dmg x 11 = 1237 dmg per mana bar

Conclusion for mage race: 504 meele dmg << 1237 destro dmg
If target has 1k health then we need only (1000/126*0.65) 5 seconds to kill it but need 1000 stamina <<<< [(1000-200)/112.5] 7 seconds to kill with destro and still have left over magica from the mana bar

Edit.
Corrected the one handed dmg value on deadric sword non-upgraded.
Corrected the time bonus for faster dual attacks.
Corrected the avaible power attacks based on test from this post: http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1279078-2419-armor-6399-damage-using-smithing-alchemy-enchanting-only-33-perks-329k-backstabs-post-3/page__view__findpost__p__19432824

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:20 pm

DBS - Your calculations are completely pointless, as you are not factoring that in Master most fights last longer than 10 seconds - crippling your Magicka and damage output - in which Destruction without crafting falls to around 29 dps. In a practical battle, base Destro does less dps than all other skills, including conjuration. With crafting, it still does less. The OP is correct, you are wrong - simple as that. You can't just use a 10 second imaginary battle. Its false and flies in the face of the actual game and magicka requirements. You also aren't factoring in that DW only needs a small sliver of stamina to do another power attack. DW dps will always be higher than Destruction in a real game battle.

In other words, anyone actually using your "information" is completely wrong from a mathematical standpoint.
Anyone who has played both Destro and DW also know you are complete wrong from actual experience.

Let me say it again, Destruction w/out crafting is the lowest dps - as you will run out of magicka fairly quickly and be doing 1/10th the DPS of other skills. This is not debatable. And again, lol 10 second battles.