Because I use it.

For the same reason Grundwulf was nerfed. Same reason the already insignificant dmg from Thurvokun(430/s to 100/s) was made even more insignificant. Same reason they thought Sthun's was fine at 13k pen, then they thought it fine at 11k, and then 5k.

The most telling one is Molag Kena. They considered making Kena reduce your weapon/spell dmg by 20% in exchange for 20% reduced skill cost because apparently Kena gives people a lot of easily accessible burst, then they did a complete 180 and not only did they not go ahead with the change, but also buffed Kena from 516 weapon/spell dmg to 560...wth, didn't they think it was too much a few weeks ago but out of the blue they decide to buff it instead?

[snip]

[edited for bashing/rude comments]

My money is on a new monster helm later this year that does what the un-nerfed version did. It will be slightly better than the nerfed Guardian and a bit worse than the old version. c.f. Iceheart

Because spreadsheet power budget balancing. It looked nice in Excel.

These are some godly spreadsheets. NGL.

They have a "power budget" calculator that they plug everything into and it spits out a value on if it's getting a buff or nerf, and given the fact that you can't take all real world variables into the calculation they often get it wrong. It's the reason most of the support sets get destroyed and damage sets get high 18-20k values on them. At least that is how they justify the changes, the real fact is that it's easier to sell new content as strong sets if you nerf older ones first...not one person complained about Iceheart, and mother cianait came along. If you have been around long enough it's easy to notice the pattern.

Could be decent if they just change the "furthest" to "closest" in terms of what enemy it targets.