"Destruction is fine, and anyone who says otherwise isn't using it properly"

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
  3. "Destruction is fine, and anyone who says otherwise isn't using it properly"
3 years ago#1
*plays on adept difficulty with 100% spell reduction cost gear and uses impact"
SSBB FC:0946-1920-8546
3 years ago#2
I was just thinking we needed another destruction topic.
http://goo.gl/UEC2Y
3 years ago#3
jammymacster posted...
I was just thinking we needed another destruction topic.


You can never have enough of a good thing.
"Okay, look. We both said a lot of things your going to regret but I think we can put our differences behind use. For science. You monster.
3 years ago#4
Destruction is OP.
3 years ago#5
pcmike2 posted...
*plays on adept difficulty with 100% spell reduction cost gear and uses impact"


I don't get why this is a problem...

If you want to use destruction and are finding it too difficult to be OP, turn the difficultly down.
I am Sisyphus, GameFaqs is my boulder
*Encouraging reasoned discussion on GFAQS since 2006*
3 years ago#6
SnkSolid3 posted...
pcmike2 posted...
*plays on adept difficulty with 100% spell reduction cost gear and uses impact"


I don't get why this is a problem...

If you want to use destruction and are finding it too difficult to be OP, turn the difficultly down.


He's trying to say that the people who say it's okay are playing on easy difficulties (which isnt even true)

You suck TC
In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws
http://i.imgur.com/JAEbWQN.png http://i.imgur.com/ZpQ84Yy.jpg
3 years ago#7
Destruction still sucks even on lower difficulties.
Hi there. I'm a nutcase and this is my Willow tree.
3 years ago#8
RebelElite791 posted...
SnkSolid3 posted...
pcmike2 posted...
*plays on adept difficulty with 100% spell reduction cost gear and uses impact"


I don't get why this is a problem...

If you want to use destruction and are finding it too difficult to be OP, turn the difficultly down.


He's trying to say that the people who say it's okay are playing on easy difficulties (which isnt even true)

You suck TC


I understand that, but I'm saying that even if that is true, it's not a problem. People should play the game at a difficulty that is entertaining for them.
I am Sisyphus, GameFaqs is my boulder
*Encouraging reasoned discussion on GFAQS since 2006*
3 years ago#9
SnkSolid3 posted...
RebelElite791 posted...
SnkSolid3 posted...
pcmike2 posted...
*plays on adept difficulty with 100% spell reduction cost gear and uses impact"


I don't get why this is a problem...

If you want to use destruction and are finding it too difficult to be OP, turn the difficultly down.


He's trying to say that the people who say it's okay are playing on easy difficulties (which isnt even true)

You suck TC


I understand that, but I'm saying that even if that is true, it's not a problem. People should play the game at a difficulty that is entertaining for them.

You are thinking way too hard for a pcmike2 topic.
3 years ago#10
The_nWjoe posted...
SnkSolid3 posted...
RebelElite791 posted...
SnkSolid3 posted...
pcmike2 posted...
*plays on adept difficulty with 100% spell reduction cost gear and uses impact"


I don't get why this is a problem...

If you want to use destruction and are finding it too difficult to be OP, turn the difficultly down.


He's trying to say that the people who say it's okay are playing on easy difficulties (which isnt even true)

You suck TC


I understand that, but I'm saying that even if that is true, it's not a problem. People should play the game at a difficulty that is entertaining for them.

You are thinking way too hard for a pcmike2 topic.


> thinking
> pcmike2 topic

Pick one.
  1. Boards
  2. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
  3. "Destruction is fine, and anyone who says otherwise isn't using it properly"

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived