Why nerf Iceheart?

Vyvrhel

Altyrann wrote: »

From the patch notes:

Iceheart:
Reduced the damage shield this set provides to 6050 from 8600.
Reduced the damage per tick to 500 from 770.
Increased the cooldown to 12 seconds from 6.

Developer Comment:
Iceheart has long been a powerful defensive set that has become a staple for situations where you want to sacrifice damage for survivability, especially in instances such as Maelstrom Arena and no-death Trial runs. While we love the idea of this set helping in those contexts, the value of defensive and offensive potential this set provided was leagues beyond our standards when comparing it to other sets such as Brands of the Imperium or Phoenix.

Looks like a useful, popular, set has taken not one but three hits to bring it into line with sets nobody uses, or to help make the rather useless new monster set look slightly less useless. As per the Dev comment, we were already sacrificing damage for survivability, so it feels like a triple nerf is rather overkill.

I hope they manage to learn that taking away stuff people like is VERY BAD for bussiness. If they wanted sets like Brands or Phoenix more popular, the good way would be to boost the less popular sets.

Vyvrhel

Malprave wrote: »

I feel like everybody should just start using trials gear and run the prescribed builds because there’s no plus to trying to be creative. Quite the contrary you have to pay a penalty for it.

Very well put. Sometimes it feels like everything in this game is designed to prevent people from being creative and different. Things are so very counterintuitive. You have to study articles of people (kudos to them) who took the pain and tested everything to come up with description how the game really works to understand what is happening in combat. The state of combat system in this game and the continuous nerfing of everything people use literally kills the game which is excellent in the overland design, dungeons, and namely plot and quests and excellent dialogues. I enjoy this game so very much, only if the combat designers had somehow more constructive than destructive approach.

Lumenn

I was honestly considering creating a new toon, buying all shards and skill lines and take him through EVERYTHING. The ultimate character that would become my main, but drastic changes every update, now nerfing old just to promote new and unimproved makes me wonder if eso plus is worth it since Zo$ "vision" seems to be unstable and having to relearn every few months. Perhaps just build fatigue but this last nerf to iceheart REALLY makes me wonder what's the point, they'll just change any achievement you make. No trust.

The_Lex

Olauron wrote: »

Iceheart is not a strong set. If it is higher than your standards then fix your standards.

5cript

Can you now also buff the shield amount back up a little to like 6k on both? Then I wouldn't even complain anymore.

Ozby

Revert Ice heart and change the new Mother Clanait set to be more competition for Ice heart rather than ruining Ice heart to sell your new DLC. Cancelled my sub until I see better changes and less underhanded cash grabbing.

Xvorg

Ozby wrote: »

Revert Ice heart and change the new Mother Clanait set to be more competition for Ice heart rather than ruining Ice heart to sell your new DLC. Cancelled my sub until I see better changes and less underhanded cash grabbing.

they just needed to make MC proc on light attacks (30~50% chnce) and it was stronger than IH

gp1680

It is depressing and quite telling that ZOS actually came out and admitted they are nerfing this set just to promote their new DLC. It is another example of how the current execs of this game continue to spiral down the road of monetization in all facets. The players in this forum have constantly asked for an end to the constant nerfs into oblivion of useful sets. Instead of listening, they openly admit to nerfing a popular set to make their new garbage look better. Sad...very sad.

Tsar_Gekkou

With as much as Zos hates sustain, i'm surprised they aren't nerfing Perfected False God as well since almost all magicka classes run it. But they choose to nerf a set that most people don't even use except for trying to do solo stuff.

Rolandaxx

Juhasow

In short : because it's very powerfull set. From DD perspective it's most powerfull defensive set used atm , leaving many other defensive sets far behind. Other defensive sets have hard time competing with set that extends users health by 9k every 6 seconds with very easy proc conditions. It's almost like increasing users defense by 50% passively. And it's monster set so it just requires 2 armor slots which allows for building high defense without any drastic changes to the setup.

It's one of the sets that makes healers less usefull in many types of content and makes people way more careless about mechanics which in longer run makes people weaker players in general. Both of those things are not good for the health of the game despite the fact players are benefiting from the set itself. But there are certain reasonable levels of how much benefit set can provide and Iceheart brings simply too much to the table too easily.

Dusk_Coven

Juhasow wrote: »

In short : because it's very powerfull set. From DD perspective it's most powerfull defensive set used atm , leaving many other defensive sets far behind.

If you are a DD... but focussing on DEFENSE... Hmm...

SydneyGrey

It was the only ice set that was fairly easy for newer/less competent players to get, so of course they destroy it. Once again, ZOS has to take a sledgehammer to the glass greenhouse.

Juhasow

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

In short : because it's very powerfull set. From DD perspective it's most powerfull defensive set used atm , leaving many other defensive sets far behind.

If you are a DD... but focussing on DEFENSE... Hmm...

I would hardy call it "focusing on defense" when out of 12+items You're wearing only second piece of 2 piece set gives You defensive bonus. It's like saying that stam DD is focusing on healing when slotting echoing vigor or that DD is focusing on tanking if he have some CPs into block cost reduction. Adding Your own agenda to my words wont change the reality.

And if DD incorporating some defense into his setup is unknown incident for You then You have lot to learn about this game.

IAVITNI

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

We’ve been reading everyone’s feedback about the recent change to Iceheart (not just on the forums, but other channels and sources as well) and we appreciate you taking the time to let us know your thoughts. We know it’s frustrating to see a strong set get adjusted in this way, but it was a necessary step to bring it a little closer in strength with existing and upcoming sets.

That said, based on some in-game data, testing, and the feedback we’ve been reading, we’re going to make further adjustments to this set in next week’s PTS patch. The plan is to make the baseline function meet the same standards as the Mother Ciannait set, with a 5k shield that lasts up to 6 seconds with a 6 second cooldown. With Iceheart's auxiliary function being focused on preserving the shield to get as much effectiveness out of the damage as possible, and Ciannait around rushing in boldly to break the shield to maximize the Magicka gain, there will be a better parity between the two that helps them both meet our standards as well as feel different from an engagement standpoint.

@ZOS_GinaBruno
The damage needs to be buffed if the shield size is going to be decreased. Grothdar has around a 2k tooltip and lasts for 5 seconds. Iceheart has around a 700 tooltip and lasts 6 seconds but only if you take no damage which contradicts the existence of the shield. Please relay to devs that because the shield on Iceheart is so small it does not last long.

While I agree the set was "over-performing" it was only in very niche circumstances for specific goals and even then would not be considered to be "Best in Slot". If the shield is going to be decreased the damage either needs to see either a flat increase or a scaling increase that nets an overall higher DPS when actually taking damage. Or remove the static cool down and have the timer start as soon as the shield is destroyed.

Iceheart also sees 0-low use in PvP because the shield size is so small and does not last (meaning damage does not last either). Same will occur for Ciannait. 2.5k shields are way too small in PvP, especially when you consider the opportunity cost of running Iceheart/Ciannait in relation to other sets. In PvP the dps output of this set would effectively be 0 while grothdar is close to 10k tooltip. This is similar to PvE because you either need to be standing near enemies taking damage almost immediately (read as: losing Iceheart shield & damage) or you are far from actual harm using Iceheart to inflate health pools to avoid 1 shots in dungeons designed to void the necessity of healers (you cannot heal 1 shots) meaning the damage is useless.

If sets like Iceheart are going to be "adjusted" to bring them "in line" then please bring them in line with the entirety of the game (to the best of your abilities) and not simply to a single set that underperformed in a vacuum let alone relative to pre-existing sets.

The second iteration of Ciannait is a step in the right direction but the auxiliary needs to be stronger if the primary shield is affected by battlespirit.

Just want to reiterate the ONLY time Iceheart sees use is in niche situations and not because the set is actually good. The effects of Iceheart are never 100% utilized based on the situations described above. Please keep this in mind when balancing both sets.

pklemming

WIth the revert back to 6 seconds, I think the change is dot/ds change is now acceptable. I am still not overly happy, but it will still be usable to help new people and those wishing to do solo content.

Just wanted to say thank you for listening. I tend to mostly come to this forum to complain, and I wanted to do something other than that (kinda) for once.

Dusk_Coven

IAVITNI wrote: »

While I agree the set was "over-performing" it was only in very niche circumstances for specific goals and even then would not be considered to be "Best in Slot".

Iceheart is a staple for solo builds because it's useful to clear 4-man content alone. But there you are sacrificing TIME for playstyle. Which is a pretty big sacrifice to make for any set. Right now it's a niche gameplay that is in demand but without support.

Even so, solo play is basically the best choice for players interested in the Story in dungeons because there really isn't a better alternative. Doing it yourself takes less time than asking for a team that is willing to let you take your time to experience all of a dungeon -- not just the story but the layout and lore. Assembling that team can take a stupid amount of asking around over several days and you're still not guaranteed to get a team because no one wants to simply donate their valuable time.

Furthermore, simply wearing Iceheart isn't going to guarantee a solo run through even a story mode dungeon is going to succeed. It's just one of the better choices -- just as many many other sets are better choices for different objectives.

Vyvrhel

gp1680 wrote: »

It is depressing and quite telling that ZOS actually came out and admitted they are nerfing this set just to promote their new DLC. It is another example of how the current execs of this game continue to spiral down the road of monetization in all facets. The players in this forum have constantly asked for an end to the constant nerfs into oblivion of useful sets. Instead of listening, they openly admit to nerfing a popular set to make their new garbage look better. Sad...very sad.

Well they do need money to create a new content and there are games dying because of no new content. So this is understandable. But the naturall way would be to make a new GOOD set which would outshine the old stuff, way better than to nerf the old proven stuff PEOPLE ARE USED TO.

The link below is an aviation article yet the point here is relevant to what is ZOS doing: "Contrary to popular belief, people take biggest risks when they are confronted with losses rather than gains. " We simply hate loses more than we love gains. Let it sink in, ZOS.
https://soaringeconomist.com/why-do-experienced-pilots-crash-prospect-theory-and-soaring/

The Red Queen race is better done the usual way - the losing side shoud run faster.

ESO_Nightingale

pklemming wrote: »

WIth the revert back to 6 seconds, I think the change is dot/ds change is now acceptable. I am still not overly happy, but it will still be usable to help new people and those wishing to do solo content.

Just wanted to say thank you for listening. I tend to mostly come to this forum to complain, and I wanted to do something other than that (kinda) for once.

Just to let you know, that's a 54% damage nerf with reduced effective uptime due to the damage shield reduction.

Luzifusy

i see people complaining about zos nerfing sets over and over again, raging about their weird decisions in marketing and losing faith in their dev team. not just in eso but in other games as well. it's always the same, yet gamers keep playing, keep spending their money, keep having ther sub active. zos is free to do anything they want as long as their "proud" customer base is paying them. why would they not? they are even free to promote new dlcs by simply making the old content worse.

if you want actual change then you got to change your gaming habits first. it's like people complaing about politics while they are still sitting on their couch watching brainwashing tv programs while eating a bag of chips.

TmanFoody

thadjarvis wrote: »

@TmanFoody
I believe the post you quoted was mostly tongue in cheek to illustrate nerfing an old set to sell a new one.

@karekiz ’s mistake was leaving out a camo hunter nerf

Maybe. I didn’t read the last part, which makes it seem sarcastic. I’m just scared to lose slimecraw because of a joke that was taken seriously.

Xvorg

Juhasow wrote: »

In short : because it's very powerfull set. From DD perspective it's most powerfull defensive set used atm , leaving many other defensive sets far behind. Other defensive sets have hard time competing with set that extends users health by 9k every 6 seconds with very easy proc conditions. It's almost like increasing users defense by 50% passively. And it's monster set so it just requires 2 armor slots which allows for building high defense without any drastic changes to the setup.

It's one of the sets that makes healers less usefull in many types of content and makes people way more careless about mechanics which in longer run makes people weaker players in general. Both of those things are not good for the health of the game despite the fact players are benefiting from the set itself. But there are certain reasonable levels of how much benefit set can provide and Iceheart brings simply too much to the table too easily.

How is that Iceheart is stronger than Blood Spawn or Troll king (the other 2 viable monster defensive sets, because Skelly was the strongest some time ago)?

By the way IH proc conditions are not so easy to meet. You are forced to run crit chance to make it reliable which you cannot build as tanky as you might imagine.

Everyone I know says the set is not OP, but by no way it is useless. It is pretty niche.

On the other hand, Slimecraw makes healers even less useless. Do we nerf slimecraw too? What about solo players?

If we want to keep the game consistent, OK, lets tweak some sets. But nerfing them into oblivios seems just wrong. And you know what's worst? ZoS is going to sell a set that procs on channel which is easier to proc than IH, but that eventually will keep a shield up 100% time. On a Templar that's a bubble for using your main spammable, but not a simple bubble, just one with minor protection. Now tell me about sets that make people way more careless about mechanics.

Oh, I forgot Chudan that could give you a bubble with like 8 k armor if you put a shield glyph on an infused weapon

thadjarvis

Considering the new plan for the set, is the damage even worthwhile?

In other words, would increasing the shield in exchange for setting the damage to a nominal amount fit with players' desired uses?

I perceive players choose to use the live set for

1. To provide a ton of defense
2. To proc frost damage dependent sets, passives, and status effects
3. Thematic RP reasons

Increasing the shield while decreasing damage fit those. Like make the damage 1 and increase the shield as much as their balance calculations permit?

Sandman929

thadjarvis wrote: »

Considering the new plan for the set, is the damage even worthwhile?

In other words, would increasing the shield in exchange for setting the damage to a nominal amount fit with players' desired uses?

I perceive players choose to use the live set for

1. To provide a ton of defense
2. To proc frost damage dependent sets, passives, and status effects
3. Thematic RP reasons

Increasing the shield while decreasing damage fit those. Like make the damage 1 and increase the shield as much as their balance calculations permit?

I'd rather they just kept the damage and dropped the defense. There are defensive sets but very few frost sets. Keeping both damage and shield means neither can be very strong.

ZOS_Volpe

Greetings,
We've removed some comments that were discussing moderator actions. For further posts be sure to stay constructive and respectful of the Forum Rules. If you ever have questions or concerns about a moderator action or decision we have made in our ESO forums, or wish to appeal a forum warning or infraction you’ve received, we ask that you please contact https://beth.games/37Zkmkf to do so or reach out to a member of our moderation team. We are happy to discuss and review specific moderation-related actions with you.

Dusk_Coven

ZOS_TrishM wrote: »

We are happy to discuss and review specific moderation-related actions with you.

No they are not. They don't even acknowledge reading your evidence for appeal, then make the same mistake again, only they add that their decision is final, ending all discussion.
And then they don't enforce the same rule evenly. https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/dwz3de/psa_do_not_use_this_mmo_term_in_eso_forums/

This is why people get even more frustrated when mods remove their posts in this way because the appeal procedure is broken.
The "proper" way to get reasonable people to look at your ticket is apparently to post it on the forums -- https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/507942/if-your-credit-card-gets-double-charged-beware-the-dangers-of-support/

pklemming

ESO_Nightingale wrote: »

pklemming wrote: »

WIth the revert back to 6 seconds, I think the change is dot/ds change is now acceptable. I am still not overly happy, but it will still be usable to help new people and those wishing to do solo content.

Just wanted to say thank you for listening. I tend to mostly come to this forum to complain, and I wanted to do something other than that (kinda) for once.

Just to let you know, that's a 54% damage nerf with reduced effective uptime due to the damage shield reduction.

Vyvrhel wrote: »

gp1680 wrote: »

It is depressing and quite telling that ZOS actually came out and admitted they are nerfing this set just to promote their new DLC. It is another example of how the current execs of this game continue to spiral down the road of monetization in all facets. The players in this forum have constantly asked for an end to the constant nerfs into oblivion of useful sets. Instead of listening, they openly admit to nerfing a popular set to make their new garbage look better. Sad...very sad.

Well they do need money to create a new content and there are games dying because of no new content. So this is understandable. But the naturall way would be to make a new GOOD set which would outshine the old stuff, way better than to nerf the old proven stuff PEOPLE ARE USED TO.

The link below is an aviation article yet the point here is relevant to what is ZOS doing: "Contrary to popular belief, people take biggest risks when they are confronted with losses rather than gains. " We simply hate loses more than we love gains. Let it sink in, ZOS.
https://soaringeconomist.com/why-do-experienced-pilots-crash-prospect-theory-and-soaring/

The Red Queen race is better done the usual way - the losing side shoud run faster.

Yup, I am aware of both the nerf to the ds and damage output. Whilst I am unhappy about both, the set with a 12 second CD would have been useless. This was never an offensive set. The dps decrease is minorly annoying, the shiald a little moreso, but the main problem, and the thing that would have killed the helm,was the 12 second cooldown.

It would be nice if they revert it, but this was more than I was expecting. It was just nice to see a bit of a stepdown and not render it a total decon set.

Rolandaxx

Vyvrhel wrote: »

The link below is an aviation article yet the point here is relevant to what is ZOS doing: "Contrary to popular belief, people take biggest risks when they are confronted with losses rather than gains. " We simply hate loses more than we love gains. Let it sink in, ZOS.
https://soaringeconomist.com/why-do-experienced-pilots-crash-prospect-theory-and-soaring/

You had me at Kahneman

Granicus

I’m in agreement with others here, any nerf of this set is still unacceptable. First, neutering the current environment to boost sales is not something that should be supported at all, by anyone, IMO.

Second, any ‘compromise’ feels like “let’s nerf it so much that when we back off a little, they’ll shut up, accept it AND be happy again.” Rinse and repeat on other sets, if they are indeed trying to boost sales.

ZoS, make the new sets BETTER so (some) people want to have them, don’t waste the time and effort we have put into getting current sets useful. And frankly, you shouldn’t be spending ANY time doing these kinds of things while you have severely chronic problems with this game. I have to wonder who is making prioritization decisions in this company?

Dusk_Coven

Granicus wrote: »

Second, any ‘compromise’ feels like “let’s nerf it so much that when we back off a little, they’ll shut up, accept it AND be happy again.”

Yup, it's a type of trickery. People lose sight of the fact that the original premise -- nerfing the set at all -- is flawed when they accept a compromise position.