How much more powerfull should Destruction be for you to feel like its not UP?

#291ben_foxPosted 2/7/2013 8:22:49 PM
I think I'll pass. Using a lot of assumptions, I came to a rough conclusion of around 575 DPS (before difficulty modification) for the dude in the video which, on Master, is enough damage laid down to drop a Giant in about 2 seconds and a Mammoth in 3, which jibes with what I saw, but so many things could be wrong that I'm not even gonna post the math.
#292lorddrago88Posted 2/7/2013 8:50:43 PM
ben_fox posted...
I think I'll pass.


I don't blame you.

Here's how I see it:

Dual wield > Destruction > Archery > 2-handed > Sword'N'Board

In terms of DPS.
---
~ What can change the nature of a man? ~
#293ben_foxPosted 2/7/2013 9:21:07 PM
One-handers generally have higher DPS potential than 2-handers (you'll note that the Mace out-DPSes the Warhammer from previous posts all else being equal) and possibly archery because those two are more focused on front-loading the damage output (archery through sickeningly strong sneak attacks).

This is an important distinction, because there are advantages and disadvantages to each. Weaker individual strike, but higher DPS weapons may deal more damage over time, but this requires more attacks and all of them have to hit. Front-loaded weapons get that out of the way in one shot; DPS is irrelevant if the bad guy is down in one swing. That cuts both ways, though, a faster, higher-DPS weapon with weaker individual hit damage will get a portion of its DPS if you miss an attack, but the front-loaded weapon is all or nothing. Neither is ultimately "better" than the other, it comes down to which playstyle you prefer.
#294FreeMan5407Posted 2/7/2013 10:14:07 PM(edited)
you did a nice work i give you that but that still NOT enough , first the adversion potion need weapon switching, you still not count the 2.25 on a power attack, the damage of the enchanting can get over 50 dmg each one , you use aspect of terror but not necromage instead of the 47% is 63% per gear , 47% echanting potion and over 158% smithing potion , and NO elemental fury if enchanting dmg is low, why not use EF? , also you forget weakness to magic but the math still off :) like i said good job , however is not completed yet

i think i smell biased SIMPLE AS THAT
#295Kant_Remoob_EhtPosted 2/7/2013 9:43:27 PM
Akito_Kinomoto posted...
From: Kant_Remoob_Eht | #281
Akito_Kinomoto posted...
...Destruction is underpowered?

Tell that to the warriors facing the bull**** known as Ice Mages. :P

The point of a mage is to liter the fight with all kinds of nonsense. The warrior and archer classes are linear.

But I play a Nightblade. So.


Are we talking about the player controlled mages or the NPC mages that seem to have bottomless amounts of magicka?

The latter. Hence the :P

Though I swear an Arch-[Destruction] does more damage than the player does. Who knows.


Do lighting attacks/magicka poisons even sap enough of their pool of magicka to keep them from doing spells?
---
GT: Boomer and Tank
Pretty darn confident..... I don't want to have to wait till the Microendony XBOXS 4ii comes out another 15 years later....
#296FreeMan5407Posted 2/7/2013 9:45:03 PM
Kant_Remoob_Eht posted...
Akito_Kinomoto posted...
From: Kant_Remoob_Eht | #281
Akito_Kinomoto posted...
...Destruction is underpowered?

Tell that to the warriors facing the bull**** known as Ice Mages. :P

The point of a mage is to liter the fight with all kinds of nonsense. The warrior and archer classes are linear.

But I play a Nightblade. So.


Are we talking about the player controlled mages or the NPC mages that seem to have bottomless amounts of magicka?

The latter. Hence the :P

Though I swear an Arch-[Destruction] does more damage than the player does. Who knows.


Do lighting attacks/magicka poisons even sap enough of their pool of magicka to keep them from doing spells?


it can happen but is very rare
#297Kant_Remoob_EhtPosted 2/7/2013 9:46:03 PM
FreeMan5407 posted...
Kant_Remoob_Eht posted...
Akito_Kinomoto posted...
From: Kant_Remoob_Eht | #281
Akito_Kinomoto posted...
...Destruction is underpowered?

Tell that to the warriors facing the bull**** known as Ice Mages. :P

The point of a mage is to liter the fight with all kinds of nonsense. The warrior and archer classes are linear.

But I play a Nightblade. So.


Are we talking about the player controlled mages or the NPC mages that seem to have bottomless amounts of magicka?

The latter. Hence the :P

Though I swear an Arch-[Destruction] does more damage than the player does. Who knows.


Do lighting attacks/magicka poisons even sap enough of their pool of magicka to keep them from doing spells?


it can happen but is very rare


Would explain why the lighting mages can sap my magicka like no ones business, yet using sparks or the like on them just sort of tickles them or something.
---
GT: Boomer and Tank
Pretty darn confident..... I don't want to have to wait till the Microendony XBOXS 4ii comes out another 15 years later....
#298FreeMan5407Posted 2/7/2013 9:52:02 PM
@ Kant_Remoob_Eht

if you are using spark that explain it, although you mention the others spell, unless you are playing on master, also they can use ward pretty fast

and yea must of the time those mages seem to have infinite magicka
#299rx54Posted 2/7/2013 10:33:10 PM(edited)
I'm still waiting for somebody to prove that Destruction can do more damage at its max than melee at its max with no exploits or temporary effects ie potions.

"Well Destruction can use potions hardy har har"
Well so can one-handed and two-handed so what's your point?

Melee gets enhancements from potions and equipment.
Destruction got nothing, until Dragonborn.
Now there is 1 item, that you can have equipped at a time anyways.

People throwing up their numbers about Destructions power and saying it is better than melee.
Yea, it's pretty easy to throw out numbers and make them seem big when you give no numbers for melee in comparison.
Maybe you do all the math for the maximum melee output, realize you are completely wrong so delete it and just post the magic stuff.

Such a biased argument.
I don't need to waste time with the math because it's a waste of time.

It would be like doing the math of how many feet per second a Dodge Caravan vs Gallardo would be.
---
Nobody is as funny as Greg Giraldo & Louis CK
Dubstep - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wTLjEqj5Xk
#300LinkLuigiPosted 2/7/2013 10:34:23 PM
lorddrago88 posted...
- Because they didn't want to use enchanting or wear an ugly mask?


Because they need to use enchanting or an ugly mask. That was the point that was said multiple, multiple times.

- I never commented on anyone's situation. Don't put words into my mouth.

Highlighted the bad reasons. As for a fixed budget, just skip McDonalds or some other games to save up for it. If it's that difficult, you have bigger problems to worry about first.


But you did. When you comment on whether or not a person's reason for not buying an optional DLC (while telling them to "skip things to pay for said optional DLC), you're commenting on their situation. Not everybody has this DLC. That must be respected, and nobody has to clarify with you as to whether or not their reasons are good enough for you. That is why I only speak of the core game. This is a video game, not life. Telling people to "worry about your finances first" is a pretty childish thing to do. For all you know, they are. And as such, they aren't spending the additional cash on a video game. Unless, of course, you plan on buying it for them.

Bottom line, if they have to rely on a DLC to "fix" Destruction's issues, well, that's another issue on top of that.

- So you used a 40 damage weapon (roughly) on master with no enchantments and no smithing and no alchemy?


You can use a shiv with no enchantments and no smithing, game ain't that tough.


And I did clarify, in that rather lengthy paragraph I wrote. You need me to clarify that? I will if I wasn't clear, that's no issue, just wanna be sure.

- That is a different topic.


How so?

- No, the game designers should simply balance it. Self imposed restrictions are just a sign of bad game design. I do not want to encourage that.


Then by all means, have them balance it. I don't see why the option should be removed simply because you don't happen to like it.