Why nerf Iceheart?

Taloros

Corkscrews are damn fine tools for removing corks, but pretty much useless for everything else. If you want to hammer in a nail, remove a screw or dig a hole, don't bring a corkscrew. But if you want to remove a cork, a corkscrew is pretty much the only thing that'll do the job.

Same is with Iceheart. It's not a helpful argument to say it's useful in vBRP and therefore overpowered. It would be more valid to look at how many other instances it is used, from solo PvE to group PvP. Zaan, Illambris, Grothdar and many other sets seem to be muuuuuch more popular there, except for a few solo PvE players more on the casual side of the scale.

So, it's just a niche set for defensively minded "pro" players and a helpful set for "casual" players.

Basically, a perfectly balanced set.

No need to nerf it.

Except to promote a DLC, maybe.

Juhasow

Olauron wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

It looks like You still dont get that things are not just black or white and sets are not just good or bad. Good sets can be better or worse within the group called "good sets" and iceheart currently is at the top of that group.

If Iceheart is in a group of good sets but not in a group of best sets then it needs buffing. Nerfing a set because it is good and not even in the best group is absurd.

It is in the group of "beyond best sets".

Dracane

@Juhasow Evil entity you. Asking people to show you a defensive set that competes with Iceheart; knowing that almost all defensive sets are underwhelming, underpowered and long forgotten. Iceheart is just less underwhelming than the others. Or I should say, it is roughly where other defensive sets should be.

Juhasow

pklemming wrote: »

@Juhasow

I am not sure what level of interaction you have with new players, but judging by your posts it seems to be quite low. We invite new people to our guild and try to help them get in to the game. There is a lot of content now, and far too many outdated guides.

As part of getting them in to the game, once they reach cp 160, we usually help them get some of the easier monster helms, one of which is Iceheart. This allows them to actually stay alive(a little more) while introducing them to different content and getting them used to game mechanics. They often still die, a lot, but this helps.

Just because you consider PVE content too easy, does not mean everyone considers or finds it easy. Changes to this, imo, hurts newer players more than anything else. ZoS should be doing everything possible to encourage these people to stay and spend money on the game. Their early experience to the game should not be the helm they use to help stay alive being nerfed.

In addition to that there are a lot of older players in this game and quite a lot with disabilities. This, again, helps them participate and attempt content they may not otherwise be able to do.

All ways around, I find this a stupid change, especially since it should have been the new helm changed to be more attractive, not the old helm neredf to make the new one desirable by contrast.

@pklemming I have more interractions with new/casual players then with old/experienced players. Your judgment is wrong. I also always reccomend Iceheart to new players that ask me for help. I even talk them out from farming things like Zaan and other stuff they see in guides before they'll get Iceheart and I am helping them to get it. But that doesn't mean I'll be blind and not voice my opinion that set itself is overtuned.

Also You're next person that have issues with reading. I've said that Iceheart makes many PvE encounters too easy not that I consider PvE too easy. Thos are two completly different statements. Encouraging new people does not mean holding their hands all the way , granting them free pass and making everything easier for them. That will just hurt them later as they'll meet harder ancounters and suddenly realise they're not as good as they were thinkin. There is overland content already if someone wants easy mode completion. Encouraging people does not mean making content easier to complete. Making content too easy actually have opposite result.

Sorry to say that but we cannot have game for masses based on minorities. As heartless as it sounds , game cannot be balanced around people with disabilities if target of it is mass audience. Developer needs to acknowledge the fact there are people with disabilities in the game and make life easier for them if possible but also cannot make balance of the game made around that group because that may hurt experience of the rest. And sometimes wheter You have certain disability or not You need to accept the fact that You wont be able beat everything in the game.

I find initial Iceheart nerf to be too harsh aswell but I do not agree that set is fine and perfectly balanced as it is on live server. If they would make new helmet simply stronger then Iceheart currently is , that would be just pushing the meta higher to sell DLC which would increase power creep and dumb down the game. Simply making things better then the currently existing ones is not always the solution if currently existing things are already very strong.

Juhasow

Dracane wrote: »

@Juhasow Evil entity you. Asking people to show you a defensive set that competes with Iceheart; knowing that almost all defensive sets are underwhelming, underpowered and long forgotten. Iceheart is just less underwhelming than the others. Or I should say, it is roughly where other defensive sets should be.

Or there is a middle ground that all those sets should strive for.

Dracane

Juhasow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

@Juhasow Evil entity you. Asking people to show you a defensive set that competes with Iceheart; knowing that almost all defensive sets are underwhelming, underpowered and long forgotten. Iceheart is just less underwhelming than the others. Or I should say, it is roughly where other defensive sets should be.

Or there is a middle ground that all those sets should strive for.

Defensive sets are generally less impactful than offensive sets. Overall, this game is well known to favor offense in almost all pve scenarios. Offensive sets also scale much better. Spell/weapon damage from armor scales with your buffs, whereas armor and spell resistance are just static. Damage shields are the same. All you can get is a puny buff when investing into bastion and that can cost you elsewhere.

So I disagree. Defensive sets must be elevated to be a serious choice. If you sacrifise your damage, then there should be something in return. Even then I think, offense is still more favorable.

Juhasow

Dracane wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

@Juhasow Evil entity you. Asking people to show you a defensive set that competes with Iceheart; knowing that almost all defensive sets are underwhelming, underpowered and long forgotten. Iceheart is just less underwhelming than the others. Or I should say, it is roughly where other defensive sets should be.

Or there is a middle ground that all those sets should strive for.

Defensive sets are generally less impactful than offensive sets. Overall, this game is well known to favor offense in almost all pve scenarios. Offensive sets also scale much better. Spell/weapon damage from armor scales with your buffs, whereas armor and spell resistance are just static. Damage shields are the same. All you can get is a puny buff when investing into bastion and that can cost you elsewhere.

So I disagree. Defensive sets must be elevated to be a serious choice. If you sacrifise your damage, then there should be something in return. Even then I think, offense is still more favorable.

Sorry but no. It's all I can say to keep my answert short because there is so much incorrect stuff in post above it would take an essay to explain. And some of my previous posts already disprove lot of stuff that was being said by You in post above.

Dracane

Juhasow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

@Juhasow Evil entity you. Asking people to show you a defensive set that competes with Iceheart; knowing that almost all defensive sets are underwhelming, underpowered and long forgotten. Iceheart is just less underwhelming than the others. Or I should say, it is roughly where other defensive sets should be.

Or there is a middle ground that all those sets should strive for.

Defensive sets are generally less impactful than offensive sets. Overall, this game is well known to favor offense in almost all pve scenarios. Offensive sets also scale much better. Spell/weapon damage from armor scales with your buffs, whereas armor and spell resistance are just static. Damage shields are the same. All you can get is a puny buff when investing into bastion and that can cost you elsewhere.

So I disagree. Defensive sets must be elevated to be a serious choice. If you sacrifise your damage, then there should be something in return. Even then I think, offense is still more favorable.

Sorry but no. It's all I can say to keep my answert short because there is so much incorrect stuff in post above it would take an essay to explain. And some of my previous posts already disprove lot of stuff that was being said by You in post above.

It is fine. You have made interesting points on the last page. I do not disagree entirely.
My main point is, that most defensive sets are very boring and weak and that they all need a lift.

Dusk_Coven

Juhasow wrote: »

It looks like You still dont get that things are not just black or white and sets are not just good or bad. Good sets can be better or worse within the group called "good sets" and iceheart currently is at the top of that group.

You have been told repeatedly and in various posts not just by me that (1) your criteria/examples are niche and therefore your argument is contrived. Balancing is for the WHOLE game not just whatever criteria you like to focus on. Making a smart set choice for any activity, especially a niche one, is also not evidence that a set is overtuned. It's just evidence that the player has a brain.
(2) Because your criteria is niche the available sets that fill it are small and being the best of a tiny selection of mediocre sets doesn't point to it being overtuned. "Good sets" in a niche requirement, and "top of a group" of that set that doesn't have a lot of choices because the requirement is so niche -- really your argument is so rigged it lacks validity.
You choose aspects of the game designed to highlight the one set you want to argue about and you claim you are right. No, that's not how sets are balanced.
Cherry picking examples where it's useful or even "the best choice" doesn't make it overtuned in the game as a whole.

The proof is in 4 years of gameplay.

Dusk_Coven

Dracane wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

@Juhasow Evil entity you. Asking people to show you a defensive set that competes with Iceheart; knowing that almost all defensive sets are underwhelming, underpowered and long forgotten. Iceheart is just less underwhelming than the others. Or I should say, it is roughly where other defensive sets should be.

Or there is a middle ground that all those sets should strive for.

Defensive sets are generally less impactful than offensive sets. Overall, this game is well known to favor offense in almost all pve scenarios. Offensive sets also scale much better. Spell/weapon damage from armor scales with your buffs, whereas armor and spell resistance are just static. Damage shields are the same. All you can get is a puny buff when investing into bastion and that can cost you elsewhere.

So I disagree. Defensive sets must be elevated to be a serious choice. If you sacrifise your damage, then there should be something in return. Even then I think, offense is still more favorable.

DDs choosing defensive sets are a really circumstantial choice for many reasons, not the least being (1) it won't help your trial pass a DPS check (2) if the tank is doing their job well you won't need to mitigate burst damage, or in the case of single bosses, any damage at all

Juhasow

Dracane wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

Dracane wrote: »

@Juhasow Evil entity you. Asking people to show you a defensive set that competes with Iceheart; knowing that almost all defensive sets are underwhelming, underpowered and long forgotten. Iceheart is just less underwhelming than the others. Or I should say, it is roughly where other defensive sets should be.

Or there is a middle ground that all those sets should strive for.

Defensive sets are generally less impactful than offensive sets. Overall, this game is well known to favor offense in almost all pve scenarios. Offensive sets also scale much better. Spell/weapon damage from armor scales with your buffs, whereas armor and spell resistance are just static. Damage shields are the same. All you can get is a puny buff when investing into bastion and that can cost you elsewhere.

So I disagree. Defensive sets must be elevated to be a serious choice. If you sacrifise your damage, then there should be something in return. Even then I think, offense is still more favorable.

Sorry but no. It's all I can say to keep my answert short because there is so much incorrect stuff in post above it would take an essay to explain. And some of my previous posts already disprove lot of stuff that was being said by You in post above.

It is fine. You have made interesting points on the last page. I do not disagree entirely.
My main point is, that most defensive sets are very boring and weak and that they all need a lift.

That I can agree with.

Grandesdar

Another ice set/skill gets nerfed... why, Zenimax?

imno007b14_ESO

All I can say is it figures. I've been wanting the head piece for a while now, but haven't felt comfortable enough to join a vet group yet. Tried several times to solo vet Direfrost Keep, but just couldn't quite manage to beat the final boss. Now I don't much care, so I guess that's... kind of good? At least I don't have to try any more.

eagles9595b16_ESO

Why nerfing Iceheart !
I've been playing ESO since the beginning and it's really annoying all the nerf/changes they made that completely made several set or monster set useless or not used anymore !

You new set will not be used even after you buffed it ! nobody's is using enough skill with cast time to trigger the new monster set. So the Iceheart nerf will only result to 2 crap unused monster set ! Iceaheart and the new one !

Is it really how you listen to the community ZoS?

Rehdaun

Can't wait to see the iceheart changes today.

Olupajmibanan

Rehdaun wrote: »

Can't wait to see the iceheart changes today.

Your wheel should have been a little more realistic. 90% of wheel nerfs, 9% revert, 1% buff. That's how these wheels work all around the world

DreadDaedroth

Admit mistake be humble and revert the change; please.

kojou

I think Iceheart should be elevated to the status of ESO meme at this point. When something gets the triple nerf so that something else introduced in a new DLC or chapter looks more appealing that is now called an "Iceheart" nerf.

GrumpyDuckling

DreadDaedroth wrote: »

Admit mistake be humble and revert the change; please.

Admitting mistakes and being humble is not in their cards.
See: Wood Elf and Argonian racial changes that they still pushed through despite the fact that they defied lore, as well as their own in-game quest dialogue.

They don't care about accuracy or logical arguments and discussions. They just do what they want. I'm not holding my breath.

SidraWillowsky

Rehdaun wrote: »

Can't wait to see the iceheart changes today.

"Iceheart now deals three flame damage when you deal critical shock damage with a poison ability"

satanio

Late meme.

CynicK

How people like me are supposed to do vet maelstorm arena now? I did not hear any outcry against it from the pvp community and sets that are for pve should not necessarily adhere to those strength standards, but we know that when they do those things they never rectify.

The_Lex

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

DreadDaedroth wrote: »

Admit mistake be humble and revert the change; please.

Admitting mistakes and being humble is not in their cards.
See: Wood Elf and Argonian racial changes that they still pushed through despite the fact that they defied lore, as well as their own in-game quest dialogue.

They don't care about accuracy or logical arguments and discussions. They just do what they want. I'm not holding my breath.

SidraWillowsky

Erm.... so you've gone and made it MORE useless, just without the cooldown?

Cooldown reduced to 6 seconds from 15.
Shield nerfed again to 5000.

Dracane

I can not believe they actually went through with their proposed change!
Is anyone even listening to us? Why are we even talking?

Revert it all and buff Mother Cyanide.

ESO_Nightingale

Okay so now that the damage shield is tanked even more. Why is the already pitiful damage still being destroyed? Wonderful zos. Just wonderful.

Dracane

ESO_Nightingale wrote: »

Okay so now that the damage shield is tanked even more. Why is the already pitiful damage still being destroyed? Wonderful zos. Just wonderful.

But you just have to love their explaination.

They want Iceheart to be played with care while the mother set is supposed to be played boldly... Yet icehearts deals damage that only applies when you... stand amidst enemies/boldly in danger. Meaning iceheart wants you to go in or am I wrong?

Sandman929

Dracane wrote: »

ESO_Nightingale wrote: »

Okay so now that the damage shield is tanked even more. Why is the already pitiful damage still being destroyed? Wonderful zos. Just wonderful.

But you just have to love their explaination.

They want Iceheart to be played with care while the mother set is supposed to be played boldly... Yet icehearts deals damage that only applies when you... stand amidst enemies/boldly in danger. Meaning iceheart wants you to go in or am I wrong?

Yeah...that's some solid thinking right there. Of course they made a set that procs a shield that you're supposed to want to get rid of to maximize the set...so...

The_Lex

Honestly, though, did anyone legitimately expect anything different from them?

Nifty2g

The_Lex wrote: »

Honestly, though, did anyone legitimately expect anything different from them?

no