Eradicate (MM) Needs a CD added!

[Wulfhunter]

I am not going to lean one way or the other towards Eradicate being overpowered, I am rather going to argue against the entire dispel system.

As has already been stated, the standard dispel rate is 5s CD/per buff stripped. Many buffs that are exceptionally long duration (the "Blade" enchants that Nightblades get, for example) are currently dispellable. This includes other things, such as Lifegiving Veil and Meins, which actually make souls "work" in the first place. The current rule of 5s CD per buff stripped is way too strong against these "soul-defining" abilities.

On the other hand, we have rapidly applied buffs, such as a Warden's HoTs, where the 5s CD/per buff stripped is probably not good enough, and may be more reasonable at a 2-4 second CD/per buff stripped instead.

So we have two conflicting points here. I think two things need to happen: Eradicate should be brought in line with other dispels (for now) and that long duration, soul-defining buffs should no longer be subject to dispels. Once both of these things are done, it would be easier to discuss if dispels need a buff or not.

Ultimately, dispelling needs to be a tactical decision, as every ability should be in a healthy PvP environment. When a player sees a Templar, Justicar, or Chloromancer, it should not necessarily be instinctive to just start spamming the dispel button. That is what is happening right now, because the benefits of pressing your dispel button vastly outweigh any other action you could be performing on those targets.

[Brad1959]

Same thing as every other mage...

... an inferior damage dealer than a Pyro.

I have never specced Pyro. I really don't want ot play a Pyro. I haven't even purchased the spell upgrades for Pyro.

Why are they making Pyro the only viable Mage PvP soul?

[Snyrf]

I have never specced Pyro. I really don't want ot play a Pyro. I haven't even purchased the spell upgrades for Pyro.

Why are they making Pyro the only viable PvP soul?

I've wondered this for 2 patches now. They keep hammering the alternate souls, and even though pyros are getting some small tweaking, it is still the more attractive choice when compared to other mage pvp setups.

[Apoth]

isn't that the same reason Pyros justified Fulminate? its 44 points so it should be powerful? same with eradicate, it should be powerful its 44 points.

[Dreyhana]

also the fact that a MM can now roflstomp any healer - clerics that use warden in PvP (and what else would you use) are now helpless when faced with a MM. We can waterjet them and knock them back, but we can't actually heal ourselves now as they will strip our hots off us faster than we can apply them - we can apply 1 hot at a time while they take away 2 buffs. Also mana doesn't regenerate at the same rate as energy which makes it that much worse

[Brad1959]

I am not going to lean one way or the other towards Eradicate being overpowered, I am rather going to argue against the entire dispel system.

As has already been stated, the standard dispel rate is 5s CD/per buff stripped. Many buffs that are exceptionally long duration (the "Blade" enchants that Nightblades get, for example) are currently dispellable. This includes other things, such as Lifegiving Veil and Meins, which actually make souls "work" in the first place. The current rule of 5s CD per buff stripped is way too strong against these "soul-defining" abilities.

On the other hand, we have rapidly applied buffs, such as a Warden's HoTs, where the 5s CD/per buff stripped is probably not good enough, and may be more reasonable at a 2-4 second CD/per buff stripped instead.

So we have two conflicting points here. I think two things need to happen: Eradicate should be brought in line with other dispels (for now) and that long duration, soul-defining buffs should no longer be subject to dispels. Once both of these things are done, it would be easier to discuss if dispels need a buff or not.

Ultimately, dispelling needs to be a tactical decision, as every ability should be in a healthy PvP environment. When a player sees a Templar, Justicar, or Chloromancer, it should not necessarily be instinctive to just start spamming the dispel button. That is what is happening right now, because the benefits of pressing your dispel button vastly outweigh any other action you could be performing on those targets.

Extremely well thought out post, that really addresses the issue (so I expect it to be ignored completely).

+1 rep (if I could do it)

[Tugrath]

Maybe you could just l2p without buffs

[Shinigam1]

As has been said, it's an exception by how deep it is in the tree (44). That's not to say it should have no cd or a higher energy cost, but it sn't the same as all others in price, so it should be better in power.

[Snyrf]

isn't that the same reason Pyros justified Fulminate? its 44 points so it should be powerful? same with eradicate, it should be powerful its 44 points.

To be technical, fulminate is a 51 point, GoS is 44.

[Snyrf]

Maybe you could just l2p without buffs

This doesn't jive with classes like chloro that literally cannot heal without LGV up. Did i mention LGV has a 15 second recast cooldown?

[Brad1959]

Maybe you could just l2p without buffs

A Chloromancer can't heal without LGV. How do you learn to play through that?

[Apoth]

To be technical, fulminate is a 51 point, GoS is 44.

gah you're right. ok replace GOS with Fulminate.

[Krazed59]

They should really hotfix this. But until then, WHEEEE!!!!

[bitnine]

Ultimately, dispelling needs to be a tactical decision, as every ability should be in a healthy PvP environment. When a player sees a Templar, Justicar, or Chloromancer, it should not necessarily be instinctive to just start spamming the dispel button. That is what is happening right now, because the benefits of pressing your dispel button vastly outweigh any other action you could be performing on those targets.

Interesting. Do you feel the same way about CC? At the moment, many forms of CC are cutthroat forms of effectiveness mitigation that require specific abilities or strategies on the part of the defender to counteract. Of course, the CC DR has dampened this somewhat, though it has raised complaints as well. Which is part of what I'm wondering, if you feel the CC DR was a step in the right direction or even needs to go further.

[Mar1boro]

go MM go MM, its ur birthday....