Why nerf Iceheart?

vivisectvib16_ESO

Nebthet78 wrote: »

Remember, give your feedback via your wallet and DON'T BUY the new DLC!!!!! That's the only thing ZOS will listen to at this point!!! And cancel your subs for a while too!

Couldn't even pre-order it if I wanted to (PS4).

Xvorg

Altyrann wrote: »

satanio wrote: »

Altyrann wrote: »

And after all this, Mother Ciannait still looks worse than Iceheart!

Revert Iceheart, then work out how to make Mother Ciannait interesting by comparison. Strictly in that order.

And my today's LotR meme trilogy ends.



You all know the story.

Argh. Icehearth!

Iceheart or Isengard?

xD

Dusk_Coven

darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »

ArtOfShred wrote: »

Well, reducing the CD back to 6 sec for Iceheart is a big rebuff at least.

Initial change was:
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.
Effectively nerfing the set to about 33% of its original efficiency.

With the changes we're at:
5000 damage shield (58% of live shield)
500 damage tick (65% of live damage)
6 sec cd (same as live)

If we weight both the shield and damage equally the set has been nerfed to around 61.5% of its efficiency. You could definitely make the argument that the lower shield lowers damage uptime. But this is definitely a lot better than the last iteration.

I think this final iteration was their intention all along.

We should definitely not lose sight of the fact that the original intent to nerf it was flawed to begin with. People who accept the compromise just got tricked.

Dusk_Coven

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

All those elite players doing guides -- the key advantage they all have is not any particular set but the fact that they have the whole thing memorized, often down to when something is going to spawn, so they pre-move there or even pre-place an AOE there to catch it.

Dusk_Coven

Xvorg 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?

Give IH 28 mts range and I'm ok with the nerf...

It is practically useless. Not good for dmg (was it good at some point?), not good as a shield.

Sometimes when I'm hunting mudcrabs for chitin, and like there are 3 and almost dead from my aoe, and I'm feeling lazy and want to respond to guild chat instead, I just let my Iceheart pulse because, you know, they aren't gonna break that shield.

Altyrann

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

Xvorg 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?

Give IH 28 mts range and I'm ok with the nerf...

It is practically useless. Not good for dmg (was it good at some point?), not good as a shield.

Sometimes when I'm hunting mudcrabs for chitin, and like there are 3 and almost dead from my aoe, and I'm feeling lazy and want to respond to guild chat instead, I just let my Iceheart pulse because, you know, they aren't gonna break that shield.

Might be the only use for it once the changes hit live. Until the set is nerfed for being overpowered for the sub 10% mudcrab killing community. 10% mudcrab killing leaderboards can no longer be cheesed!

Skullstachio

To be fair, before the nerf, If a player invested 100 points into bastion, Iceheart would have had a 10k damage shield, but now, it is at a sizeable margin, a nerf to be sure, but for true tanks out there using Iceheart, you will have more depth in your role as a tank.

Ardan147

How about keep the shield strength at around 6000 for Iceheart and increase the shield strength on Mother Ciannait to match. The primary purpose of either of those sets is the shield; it's not like players are really going to be trying to get the shield from Mother Ciannait burst through completely just for the resource gain (and similarly for Iceheart, the reason to keep the shield up is to keep the shield up so you don't take actual damage to your health). If they don't confer enough of a survival benefit then players are just going to use something like Zaan instead. (or run Infernal Guardian and instead of having a shield proc on doing damage in some form, cast the shield and have damage proc from it).

nightstrike

Ardan147 wrote: »

If they don't confer enough of a survival benefit then players are just going to use something like Zaan instead.

Careful, that just got a small nerf, too... keep saying things like this, and it'll get more.

Rolandaxx

When you introduce changes that are overwhelmingly unpopular, you have a 90% chance of disappointing the player base. While the anger holds, revenues decline. This effect can occur every time you *** off your customers.

Dusk_Coven

Ardan147 wrote: »

The primary purpose of either of those sets is the shield; it's not like players are really going to be trying to get the shield from Mother Ciannait burst through completely just for the resource gain

Actually the patch notes said exactly that -- they intended the shield on MC to be broken for the resource gain. So if players aren't doing that, I guess ZOS is gonna say they're using it wrong. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/6596525/#Comment_6596525

… and Ciannait around rushing in boldly to break the shield and gain as much Magicka as possible...

They were talking in the same sentence about Iceheart's "auxiliary function" so maybe they mean this to also be an "auxiliary function" that's being compared?

Dusk_Coven

Rolandaxx wrote: »

When you introduce changes that are overwhelmingly unpopular, you have a 90% chance of disappointing the player base. While the anger holds, revenues decline. This effect can occur every time you *** off your customers.

Except that subscription revenue is too tied to the Crafting Bag, which is of course completely unrelated to this at all. People who can't do without the Crafting Bag are still going to subscribe unless they reduce the amount they play their game as well to manage inventory.

I suppose people could boycott the DLC but those who are sitting on otherwise useless Crowns are going to pick it up or gift it while it's still Collector's Edition.

Bexy

Canned_Apples wrote: »

To sell more DLC packs.
Yay!
Yet another nerf.

Does this even work? Because they scared me away from future DLCs/chapters. I also cancelled Plus last week and I'm paying sub for an other MMO atm. I guess I'll keep ESO to redecorate my houses every once in a while but that's about it. No more money from me because they don't listen to our feedback, why bother?

Canned_Apples

Bexy wrote: »

Canned_Apples wrote: »

To sell more DLC packs.
Yay!
Yet another nerf.

Does this even work? Because they scared me away from future DLCs/chapters. I also cancelled Plus last week and I'm paying sub for an other MMO atm. I guess I'll keep ESO to redecorate my houses every once in a while but that's about it. No more money from me because they don't listen to our feedback, why bother?

I only resubbed to clean out my bank and to far something from Maelstrom, but now that that's done.. I'm done.

mazeikeen

Absolutely sickening. I can't say I'm surprised but my disgust is immeasurable.

Nifty2g

mazeikeen wrote: »

Absolutely sickening. I can't say I'm surprised but my disgust is immeasurable.

yea but you will keep playing

Ezhh

If I want a monster set to restore resources there are much better options than playing some weird mini-game to intentionally break my shield each time it comes up. Mother Ciannait isn't at all appealing due to both this and the proc criteria which will make it useless to most of my characters. Mother Ciannait is simply not an exciting set.

Turning Iceheart into a set no longer worth carrying won't make Mother Ciannait any more appealing . What it does instead is make me feel more and more tired of this game. I like new content. I like new things to explore and learn and there is so much that has been done right, but the excitement I think I could have felt over the new content is all buried under the growing mound of nerfs.

I should do new dungeons because I enjoy them, not because a set I sometimes use (note, only sometimes, because there's almost always a better option for me) has been nerfed and the new one might compete with it as a result.

Katlefiya

comes to mind...

psxfloh

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

based on some in-game data

Why does it always look like you're using ingame data to take away fun?

"Oh, ingame data shows an over-use of this or that"
A good dev would think: "Cool, so this is what brings our players fun - let's add more of it!"
Whereas an ESO-dev seems to conclude: "Oh, this must be OP - bring the NERF-HAMMER!"

Then, in a meeting, the conversation must be as follows:
Dev1: "Iceheart is overperforming, we need to tone it down, suggestions?"
Dev2: "Take away some dmg per second!?"
Dev3: "Or increase the cooldown!?"
Dev4: "Or decrease the shield buff!?"
Dev1: "Ok, let's do this!"
Devs2-4: "Which?"
Dev1: "ALL!" *brings the nerf-hammer down, crashing the table and ending the fun discussion once and for all*

Olupajmibanan

psxfloh wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

based on some in-game data

Why does it always look like you're using ingame data to take away fun?

"Oh, ingame data shows an over-use of this or that"
A good dev would think: "Cool, so this is what brings our players fun - let's add more of it!"
Whereas an ESO-dev seems to conclude: "Oh, this must be OP - bring the NERF-HAMMER!"

Then, in a meeting, the conversation must be as follows:
Dev1: "Iceheart is overperforming, we need to tone it down, suggestions?"
Dev2: "Take away some dmg per second!?"
Dev3: "Or increase the cooldown!?"
Dev4: "Or decrease the shield buff!?"
Dev1: "Ok, let's do this!"
Devs2-4: "Which?"
Dev1: "ALL!" *brings the nerf-hammer down, crashing the table and ending the fun discussion once and for all*

Remember when in-game data shown overuse of The Lady boon? Overuse was caused by the placement of the Mundus stone (It's the nearest mundus stone to Dagerfall, Vulkhel Guard and Dawons Watch. A new player basicaly picks first mundus he comes accross.) but Zos thought it was caused by the buff being too good, so they nerfed it. Later they reverted the nerf and publicly admitted their mistake. Anyways, that was just a clear example of statistics being good servant but very bad master.

kind_hero

They should match the new set with the old Iceheart... no change was needed.

Granicus

It would appear this company prefers creating/stirring controversy more than satisfying its paying customers. There was no reason for this nerf and I do not accept the “because of standards” line. The problem isn’t so much this nerf as it is the thinking behind it and the drive to keep the nerf bat busy dealing chaos. There are tons of nearly worthless sets in this game. I decon probably 90% of everything I get. There is something wrong right there.

It’s a great game, in other respects, and I don’t doubt there are some talented and caring people working for the company. But what I don’t understand is how it can constantly keep shooting itself in the foot. In most companies it’s generally due to poor management and an over obeisance to Marketing and Finance.

If you make a good product, properly support it and keep your customer in mind, you will make money and prosper. More and more these days (and certainly not exclusive to gaming companies) I feel more like a dead body to be quickly looted.

ZoS simply can’t admit that either they screwed up and must save face by digging in deeper, or they simply don’t care at all what their paying customers want (or think), primarily enjoyment (not ongoing chaos) for their money. Or likely both.

I still say boycott the new content, or reap the perpetual chaos.

darthgummibear_ESO

satanio wrote: »

Altyrann wrote: »

And after all this, Mother Ciannait still looks worse than Iceheart!

Revert Iceheart, then work out how to make Mother Ciannait interesting by comparison. Strictly in that order.

And my today's LotR meme trilogy ends.



You all know the story.

edit:typo

This is so accurate it's really sad.

Alcast

I am surprised that so little people know about the fact that Iceheart is used to get Achievements such as like Godslayer, Ticktock, Gryphon Heart etc.

Just shows that the amount of players that actually play endgame is non existant.

Did it deserve a nerf? Maybe? However, it will hurt the midtier playerbase way more than the endgame players (like always with changes like that).


Did it deserver a nerf so much that the set is completely useless? OF COURSE NOT. I hate these sledgehammer adjustments.


After much uproar, the set got changed again. The shield size went from around 8400 > 6050 > 5000. More important, they reduced the cooldown to 6 seconds again. It is beyond me how they thought 12s would be "fine".


What worries me the most is, that everything they touch these days be it skills or sets, they try to slap on long cooldowns or cast times.

Czekoludek

Alcast wrote: »

I am surprised that so little people know about the fact that Iceheart is used to get Achievements such as like Godslayer, Ticktock, Gryphon Heart etc.

Just shows that the amount of players that actually play endgame is non existant.

Did it deserve a nerf? Maybe? However, it will hurt the midtier playerbase way more than the endgame players (like always with changes like that).


Did it deserver a nerf so much that the set is completely useless? OF COURSE NOT. I hate these sledgehammer adjustments.


After much uproar, the set got changed again. The shield size went from around 8400 > 6050 > 5000. More important, they reduced the cooldown to 6 seconds again. It is beyond me how they thought 12s would be "fine".


What worries me the most is, that everything they touch these days be it skills or sets, they try to slap on long cooldowns or cast times.

New combat team love slow and unfun gameplay

colossalvoids

Well I'll agree that it's probably quite a big hit for beginners using it even after "un-nerf", was ok for me in vma test but i can go flawless without it anyway so it's not like the set is good for everyone still. Generally not much changed for prog or triplet groups as it's still reliable medium shield for just one piece sacrificed, which is nothing.

And yeah, cast times need to go asap for the love of Shor.

Juhasow

They should lower shield value down to ~6,5k. Safe area for set to not overperform but also to still be usefull.

ESO_Nightingale

Alcast wrote: »

I am surprised that so little people know about the fact that Iceheart is used to get Achievements such as like Godslayer, Ticktock, Gryphon Heart etc.

I fail to see why this set being used to get those achievements is an actual issue in the first place. people will always use the most effective thing for a situation. I think it's fine that people adapt their gear to said different situations.

I just wish that the set they introduced to compete with it wasn't so awful that they reduced iceheart down to its level to standardise it.

Dusk_Coven

ESO_Nightingale wrote: »

Alcast wrote: »

I am surprised that so little people know about the fact that Iceheart is used to get Achievements such as like Godslayer, Ticktock, Gryphon Heart etc.

I fail to see why this set being used to get those achievements is an actual issue in the first place. people will always use the most effective thing for a situation. I think it's fine that people adapt their gear to said different situations.

If set A is the supposed reason for achievement X, Y, Z and so it gets nerfed... when will that end? People will choose other sets and combinations, they will be best-in-class for trying to get the achievements, and then? Nerf again? When the challenge increases, naturally the number of useful sets will shrink.
No, being even very useful in getting an achievement is not necessarily a valid criteria for nerfing. That's just another way of shifting the goalpost for the achievements at the expense of changing something that overall is fine. It starts to look like ZOS makes a challenge and is upset that too many players found a way to beat it. That'd be just sour grapes.

rainfeatherpearl

Welp, this ends my future crown purchases. Upside is, I'll be saving money.