Why nerf Iceheart?

heaven13

Though I didn't expect any differently, the dev explanation and further shield nerf to Iceheart is absolutely asinine.

Sandman929

heaven13 wrote: »

Though I didn't expect any differently, the dev explanation and further shield nerf to Iceheart is absolutely asinine.

It is, but it seems like solid reasoning compared to the Ciannait logic of proccing a shield that you want to break quickly to make the most of the shield proccing.

Bexy

This is ridiculously disgusting.

ESO_Nightingale

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?

I love their frankly delusional comment on dizzy swing.

"We are okay with..."

It's totally fine that you guys are okay with ignoring valid feedback while pushing your awful decisions that a majority of people detest. i mean it's not like they're paying money for a product or anything. I don't understand how it's possible for the changes to get worse and worse...

Moloch1514

Wow, so disgusted with this team.

Altyrann

Gone from 3 nerfs in the first wave to one reversion and 1 further nerf.

At this stage not only is it an awful change but it's a truly awful response to feedback.

Sandman929

I think the next set should proc 400 weapon/spell damage for 6 seconds when you gap close an enemy, but that damage goes away when you boldly CC an enemy and gives you stam return.
This would be a really fun way to proc damage that you want to lose quickly in order to maximize the resource return of the set.

ZOS basically just thought this, and then high-fived about what a great idea it was.

Rehdaun

Welp, the did exactly what Gina said, nerf the damage down to 5k and decrease the cooldown back to 6s
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6585079/#Comment_6585079

ESO_Nightingale

Rehdaun wrote: »

Welp, the did exactly what Gina said, nerf the damage down to 5k and decrease the cooldown back to 6s
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6585079/#Comment_6585079

Next time they should just say our feedback is hilarious and that we should go *** ourselves.

DreadDaedroth

Wow! That's exactly what everybody asked for-. - ''. What's the point of feedback?

The_Lex

DreadDaedroth wrote: »

Wow! That's exactly what everybody asked for-. - ''. What's the point of feedback?

To placate the masses and provide the illusion of collaboration.

heaven13

Sandman929 wrote: »

heaven13 wrote: »

Though I didn't expect any differently, the dev explanation and further shield nerf to Iceheart is absolutely asinine.

It is, but it seems like solid reasoning compared to the Ciannait logic of proccing a shield that you want to break quickly to make the most of the shield proccing.

Does it though? The damage from Iceheart has a pitifully small range so you have to be melee anyway. Which means the 5k shield is going to be gone before the pitifully small damage tick has a chance to, you know, actually cause damage. With the further shield nerf they could have reverted the damage or even buffed it.

Ozzfest

I really like the game playing alone, despite the poor servers, lag and rest of the game issues, but this change really makes me look for another game now. I thought things would get better in time, but I see it a bit worse with every update. It's a shame.

Sandman929

heaven13 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

heaven13 wrote: »

Though I didn't expect any differently, the dev explanation and further shield nerf to Iceheart is absolutely asinine.

It is, but it seems like solid reasoning compared to the Ciannait logic of proccing a shield that you want to break quickly to make the most of the shield proccing.

Does it though? The damage from Iceheart has a pitifully small range so you have to be melee anyway. Which means the 5k shield is going to be gone before the pitifully small damage tick has a chance to, you know, actually cause damage. With the further shield nerf they could have reverted the damage or even buffed it.

They made it so neither set makes sense. Iceheart already didn't make sense since, as you said, you needed to be close to do damage and being close meant the shield broke and the damage stopped.
And now we have a new set that procs a shield that you don't want to get the resources for the shield breaking.

SirLeeMinion

DreadDaedroth wrote: »

Wow! That's exactly what everybody asked for-. - ''. What's the point of feedback?

After many seasons of using these the wrong way (i.e. to look for bugs and report on mechanics and changes that work poorly), I've concluded that the true point of feedback is to vent. The point of the test server is to try out crown items and to make inexpensive parses with gear you don't own. If you are using either differently, you will be disappointed with the results.

Wheresthetea11

“Based on feedback” the only feedback regarding Iceheart I’ve seen (besides a small minority who claimed it was a carry set.... lol) is to revert the set to how it is on live. OR reduce the damage so the set functions only as a defensive option. Not to match the stats of some worse set you’re trying to sell. Where is this feedback in favor of nerfing the set. And furthermore, you’re telling me majority are in favor of the nerf?

I’m willing to bet majority of the player base doesn’t want the change. And the players using ice hearts to finally get into harder content are going to be hurt the most. Some of which don’t even read the forums (or the patch notes) and will have no idea Icehearts has been nerfed until the patch hits live, and they’re suddenly dying a lot quicker.

SodanTok

These nerfs to not overperforming set nobody used but still caused creation of countless threads and 20 pages just here is so sad, it really tells the community cares very much about underused and under performing sets with great vigor. I can only clap at everyone above fighting ZoS's greed trying to sell this new set to all eso+ subscribers and cant wait to see you fighting as much for other sets that were unfortunately snubbed because of this icy rage coming from heart.

macsmooth

“Iceheart’s auxiliary function being focused on preserving the shield to maximize its damage potential”

Am I the only one missing the understanding of Auxiliary Function? What is the “Auxiliary Function” that “Preserves” the shield to then “Maximize’s the damage potential” of this set?

Shield stacking maybe? Floating Snow Balls maybe? I’m confused by what it is

Altyrann

macsmooth wrote: »

“Iceheart’s auxiliary function being focused on preserving the shield to maximize its damage potential”

Am I the only one missing the understanding of Auxiliary Function? What is the “Auxiliary Function” that “Preserves” the shield to then “Maximize’s the damage potential” of this set?

Shield stacking maybe? I’m confused by what it is

I read it as suggesting that the secondary use of this set is to avoid taking damage to the shield so you can deal some damage while it's up.

heaven13

macsmooth wrote: »

“Iceheart’s auxiliary function being focused on preserving the shield to maximize its damage potential”

Am I the only one missing the understanding of Auxiliary Function? What is the “Auxiliary Function” that “Preserves” the shield to then “Maximize’s the damage potential” of this set?

Shield stacking maybe? I’m confused by what it is

The idea is that you want the shield to last longer because when the shield is up the damage portion of the set fires. However, the damage portion is restricted to a 5m range, which is melee range meaning a 5k shield is going to be broken very quickly without the 500 damage tick to do much damage at all. Which proves, once again, that balancing by spreadsheet and not by actual contextual data is pretty incompetent.

ESO_Nightingale

Altyrann wrote: »

macsmooth wrote: »

“Iceheart’s auxiliary function being focused on preserving the shield to maximize its damage potential”

Am I the only one missing the understanding of Auxiliary Function? What is the “Auxiliary Function” that “Preserves” the shield to then “Maximize’s the damage potential” of this set?

Shield stacking maybe? I’m confused by what it is

I read it as suggesting that the secondary use of this set is to avoid taking damage to the shield so you can deal some damage while it's up.

Yeah that makes literally no sense.

macsmooth

Altyrann wrote: »

macsmooth wrote: »

“Iceheart’s auxiliary function being focused on preserving the shield to maximize its damage potential”

Am I the only one missing the understanding of Auxiliary Function? What is the “Auxiliary Function” that “Preserves” the shield to then “Maximize’s the damage potential” of this set?

Shield stacking maybe? I’m confused by what it is

I read it as suggesting that the secondary use of this set is to avoid taking damage to the shield so you can deal some damage while it's up.

It’s close range damage so shield will break unless you CC them to stop you taking damage but certainly not what I would call Auxiliary Function to the set unless the frost damage is guaranteeing minor maim

VaxtinTheWolf

Finally getting to read the PTS patch notes be like;

macsmooth

heaven13 wrote: »

macsmooth wrote: »

“Iceheart’s auxiliary function being focused on preserving the shield to maximize its damage potential”

Am I the only one missing the understanding of Auxiliary Function? What is the “Auxiliary Function” that “Preserves” the shield to then “Maximize’s the damage potential” of this set?

Shield stacking maybe? I’m confused by what it is

The idea is that you want the shield to last longer because when the shield is up the damage portion of the set fires. However, the damage portion is restricted to a 5m range, which is melee range meaning a 5k shield is going to be broken very quickly without the 500 damage tick to do much damage at all. Which proves, once again, that balancing by spreadsheet and not by actual contextual data is pretty incompetent.

You replied while I was typing back to Altrann, but yeah same thoughts as I had the shield isn’t going to last long

luen79rwb17_ESO

Lol... Remember this everytime you hear Matt F. or any other dev talk so happy about how player feedback is so important for them on the next event or video or interview...

As far as I see it that sums up 2 more useless sets now. ZOS' creativity so dry they gotta destroy old content to make new "kindda" relevant. But it ain't.

Dracane

Sandman929 wrote: »

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...

Luckily, a 5k shield breaks after 2 attacks from a trash mob. So strong.

Joy_Division

CynicK wrote: »

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.

Just so you know, your post here isn't helping matters. It got nerfed precisely becuase ZOS thinks it's so strong that it alone can carry players.

If you've done vet maelstrom, you dont need a carry set to do it again.

Altyrann

ESO_Nightingale wrote: »

Altyrann wrote: »

macsmooth wrote: »

“Iceheart’s auxiliary function being focused on preserving the shield to maximize its damage potential”

Am I the only one missing the understanding of Auxiliary Function? What is the “Auxiliary Function” that “Preserves” the shield to then “Maximize’s the damage potential” of this set?

Shield stacking maybe? I’m confused by what it is

I read it as suggesting that the secondary use of this set is to avoid taking damage to the shield so you can deal some damage while it's up.

Yeah that makes literally no sense.

Indeed! Never intended to suggest it makes sense, just that is how I'm reading the comment.

Carsinomus

Farewell, Iceheart! I will miss you!

Somers23

This isn't a relief at all to me, predictions can be scary