Leo_G

You didn't take into context what you quoted.

Repp said Stalkers were suppose to be the Single Target kings *in the first place*, i.e. since their inception. It was stated that 'Stalkers needed a buff' and so the only logical one was giving them such a title which ran counter to (the replier *believed*) my perceived playstyle.

I don't believe there is any documentation of a dev stating before Synapes' post, that Stalkers were suppose to be 'single target damage kings'. It was an entitled belief of forum goers that was then adopted by the devs. So it's not so much going with the redname as it is just nodding to majority rule.

I have no problem with it, but I find it rather funny that, right after agreeing with the majority on what Stalkers 'should be' you post this:

"And yes, there are too many mild variations on the "melee AT" role..."

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the majority wants. They want mild variants of everything (well, of Scrappers). If you *didn't* want mild variants of the 'melee AT' or feel they're too similar, why in blue blazes would you morph Stalkers into Scrappers when you could have possibly overturned the dev's decision and had another angle of the AT buffed? Heck, you might have squeezed a melee debuffer out of Stalkers if you made a decent case...

*Now* you're done. Was that so hard?

So disregard the AT's inherent.

Your words, not mine.

And if you've been paying attention to my posts about Stalkers when the changes were being implemented, you'd know I never advocated Stalkers to be 'sneaky sneaky'. They're an ambush AT, it's in their description and you don't need to be sneaky for that. (or are you going to claim that any ambush in history has always had one side being completely invisible, quiet and slow?)

I had 2 lvl 50 pre-buff Stalker, an Elec/Regen and a DB/Nin (which has since been deleted). I don't see how that is relevant. I only have 1 lvl 50 brute (FM/SD) out of a total of 6 brutes (elec/elec, Axe/WP, Stone/SD, StJ/WP, DB/Fire) and 2 scrappers out of a total of 10. Does that mean they're hard to level or something?

I didn't say *everyone* was wrong. Siolfir, for example, doesn't agree with my stance, but he does agree about the basics: placate wasn't very good and is even less applicable now and unhidden AS is greatly more useful than hidden AS.

And I used the big text because people keep shoving words in my mouth. That I said stalkers should only hit and run, that that was their ticket to competing for xp gain, that I'm trying to shoehorn Stalkers into *my* playstyle...I never said any of that.

What I will say is, the tools that Stalkers were given (namely demoralize, placate, heck even hide and the scaling crits) take a back seat if not completely thrown out the window. You don't need them thanks to AF. All I wanted was that those old tools not be tossed aside but rather improved. What I get from others when I ask that? "Well those were badly designed..."

Duh! That's why you fix them and make them better, not add more crap ontop so you don't have to look at the useless crap or say "eeehhh, yeah that crap is crap...but lookie! Assassin's Focus!"

It's not my ideal playstyle, but using AS from hide has always and still has been a liability of the attack. It is not fixed now because it is still a liability of the attack. Demoralize was added to it to 'make up' for that liability which it did not and still doesn't and is even more apparent how much a kludge add-on that was.

They didn't fix hidden AS, they replaced it and demoralize. That has nothing to do with my ideal playstyle and has everything to do with the tools the AT was given. If the tools are made pointless vs improved to make them less pointless is the decision that had to be made.

THEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED!

That has been what I've said since the beginning. Sorry if you still couldn't hear that.

I don't believe I quoted the Stalker description in beta...in fact, I didn't really post *anything* in the Stalker beta test thread...maybe 1 post about a precieved bug with the origin temp power.

I quote the AT description now to bring to light exactly what you got was an illusion created by you guys. You *think* you knew what the AT should be not because of what it was suppose to do but what you wanted it to do. EG even hinted that what we got was because it was what you wanted, not what the AT needed.

You guys are about as right about the Stalker buffs as the guys asking for the Scrapper buffs now, which is what you guys continually demonstrate.

That would imply I'm on a crusade. The only crusade I'd be on is waiting for you all to admit you're wrong or hypocrites and then showing everyone how much more effective a scrapping Stalker is vs any other type of Stalker.

And I don't even have to do the last part anymore. Everyone has been beautifully demonstrating how useless hidden AS has become.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're just 1 player. Not everyone had trouble soloing on their Stalkers just like not everyone has a +4/x8 spawn soloing Brute.

I was preemptively mentioning that, in case someone pointed and said "Stalkers gotz n0 a03z".

On a reasonable spawn setting, you'd have to *try* and be bad to be unable to solo.

On a x2 mission setting, you're mostly dealing with 4-5 mobs, 2 if one is a boss. Are you telling me you could not AS 1 mob, cut that spawn to 3-4, placate + crit another cutting the spawn again to 2-3 then mop up the rest with ST attacks before moving to another spawn? And if you couldn't manage to survive that, run away before you die and hit them again just as they lose aggro?

I'd really like to know. What was hard for you? Because I can point to several Doms builds that are technically more complicated, several Scraps who are potentially equal and a handful of Blasters who are functionally worse.

Hit and Run can be more efficient than Die and Hosp. That's the balancing point. Soloing Stalkers can be as safe as you want it to be. That's the point of the tactic.

And I still call crap to that. Stalker's *STRENGTH* was always said to be solo. Are we being hypocritical now and taking back those words? Just because we have a buff now that makes us ridiculous solo, we say we were bad before to justify the ridiculousness?

Lol you don't know what the **** I said. You only hear what you want to hear.

I could reexplain it but I'd be wasting my breath.

Where's your documentation.

No, I can't make a statement on XP per hour because I never made documented observations on that metric nor have I read anywhere about it. The only places I even read about that were in regards to Blaster's old defiance 1.0 and Defender old vigilance 1.0.

I'm not dodging the question, I'm telling you *I can't answer that question*. I'll even quote that for you:



So why are you dodging the question? Either post your facts or admit you can't answer it...or admit that all those Stalkers before were lying about soloing.

If Stalkers were suppose to be 'Single Target Damage Kings' why does it not say that in their description?

"Skill can divert clumsy raw power, and precisely applied force can solve many problems. As a Stalker, this is the core of your specialty. You do your best work when attacking from ambush, and can even hide in plain sight to escape foes. Deadly attacks and good defenses make you a dangerous combatant and assassin, but you can be overwhelmed if you're not careful. "

No, the idea that they are suppose to be 'ST Kings' was an idea claimed by posters and then adopted by the devs with regard to the new changes. Basically, the prospect of 'ST damage king' for Stalker is entirely new. What they're suppose to be now and what they *were* suppose to be are two completely different (and now) unrelated things.

And before you claim I'm lobbying for 'good ol hit'n run', I'll just point out again, you haven't a clue what I'm talking about because you're only hearing the parts you want to hear.

I would claim, an AoE set where all ATs have the same number of AoE attacks but while one AT gets a 10% crit chance on the AoE while another can get 30-50% crit chance is considered 'more AoE', don't you think?


I don't. Dark Melee has abysmal AoE and I play to that. I made my DM/WP Stalker a 1-shot wonder (that is, his attacks 1 shot minions and he can 1 shot Lts) and put his mission settings to +3/x2. My Dark Melee tanker knows DM has weak AoE...that's why he's Shield Defense.

I'm not attacking my play experience, you just want to make excuses so it seems like you know what you're talking about.

I cannot state that for a fact because what data am I going to use to say it? I can't. I can only say this: there were Stalkers playing before the buff, *NONE* complained about solo and many said that was the AT's strength.

Basically, what you're telling me is, is those Stalkers must have teamed to get where they are or are lying. Show me, for a fact, where you get the data to prove otherwise.

And before you go and 'reword' any BS, you can just fark away the whole 'solo as effectively as...' crap. If you think buffs should take into account ridiculous farming builds and point out *THAT* is why Stalkers are less effective solo? You lose all ground.

Stalker had its own style and means to solo missions. Hit and Run isn't a sole means of XP but a means to equalize fights so there weren't 'easy fights mixed in with a few hard fights'. Stalker can delegate all fights as 'easy' since they have the tools to do so which affects overall mission completion and rewards.

Meh, I'll post how I want (within the rules). That is, I'm not trying to be aggressive, but you deserve it if you're, honestly, trying to disregard variables that don't fit your argument. Just because you don't consider it doesn't mean it's not considered in the big picture.

You don't think Stalkers could solo well. They could and did.

You don't think so because they weren't farming x8 missions. I say that's full of crap. I could solo x10 missions on a Stalker...you just have to pick the right missions.

You don't feel stealthing is applicable to the subject of Stalkers. I say too bad.


That said, I'm not saying Stalkers didn't need a buff or even that the buff was only because people wanted it and not because the AT needed it. I will say, the people who so strongly advocated that buff didn't know a cent what the AT needed.

That's an interesting premise I hadn't quite thought of: damage being related to where you hit.

You can say Tankers' damage isn't that high because they generally don't know where to hit. To them, 'the body' (or just connecting) is where you hit but what do they know? Hitting a Tanker in the groin is like sneezing on his ankle and stabbing him in the ear is like smacking him on the butt. It's all the same to him so he's not emphasizing that part.

On the other hand, a Stalker or Blaster has been shot one too many times in the knee cap not to know it's excruciating and if the foe isn't wearing armor there...

Although that makes me think...I need to brainstorm the idea of linking improved damage (no, not DPS but the actual on situation number of points) to accuracy. Wouldn't it be something if that extra -def and 'capped' hit chance amounted to something more beyond personal damage through capped damage enhancement?

Yes yes, my main is a master of swords which means, rather than not taking a certain ability for him, he must take *every* ability within those sword sets *and slot them*...*AND USE THEM*. So I have to actually conform his playstyle to incorporate all attacks, not just the good ones, and use them solo and teamed (even Confront).

Another is my Fire/SD/Mako brute. I'm still quite proud of his build which omits all Fire Melee attacks except the swords and fire breath. Since he's a dragon-kind, they don't shoot fire from their fingertips but instead from their mouths (he's got a good mix of damage, acc, endurance and range in Breath of Fire) and conceptualizes the sword as a type of dragon magic.

How many Brutes have a hover build, able to breath death on masses of foes from 40-60ft away? And how many only took the swords along with that? Probably not as many as you'd think.

I'd say both of those qualify. Good stuff good stuff

Some examples of mine: how I conceptualize my characters tends to require multiples of them (master of swords so Kat/, Dual Blades/ and Titan Weapons/ scrappers) so my most powerful is a Storm/Elec def, Sonic/Storm corr and Storm/Dark def. She's could drown the world in a torrent of storms if the magic council wasn't on her back...and she wasn't a crazy obsessed *itch (hey! why'd you bleep that? she's a storm witch!). Anyway, she's sidetracked by a lover who betrayed her and rather than continue her plans to wash the world clean, she's off trying to win the guy back, imbuing her powers into cats and making the guy realize what he's missing.

She imbued her 2 pet cats with all her lightning power (bye bye Storm/Elec def), then went and put her wind powers into another 'slave' (bye bye Sonic/Storm corr) and without her wind power, her overcast/fog powers had limited use (no Storm/Dark def). Now all she could do is call on storms. She had to find a magic fire-charmed relic to get by the fact she had no powers to directly assault people (new corr: Fire/Storm).

While that did reign in a lot of her potential power, it also created more characters (Elec/Regen stalker, Elec/Elec brute, TW/WP scrap) so it's not all bad.

Later in her story, she imbues her snow and rain powers into others but she'd be so ridiculously unfun to play without Freezing Rain and Lightning Storm, I haven't had the heart to do it yet.

Right. Logic, do you speak it? And no, not with your butt.

You could have just as easily made a Tanker or Scrapper that couldn't solo effectively as you could a Stalker that couldn't solo and vice versa. Or, to state it plainly, if you couldn't make a Stalker solo well, most likely you'd screw up Tanker solo, Blaster solo, Dominator solo and Scrapper solo.

None of those are straight forward solo ATs, not even the Scrapper (unless you specifically build them for mitigation and/or set the difficulty to its lowest). Conversely, a Stalker could relatively easily solo anything. If a mission is truly truly hard, a Stalker can do something those other guys can't do: hit and run.

It ain't fast, but who cares? You're solo and the foe is handing your rear to you.

As for AoE on teams, I'll point you to Martial Arts, Energy Melee and Dark Melee on Scraps, Tanks and Brutes (surprise surprise, those are the same sets that have weak AoE on Stalkers too!). A DM or EM character is going to be weak in AoE, so what? A Spines or Elec Stalker will be great in AoE, so what?

You've lost any logic foothold you imagined you had.

Well I do. But then I feel I'm at least entitled to begrudge since I've been playing them back when their crit rate was tied to the foe being held or slept.

That is to say, I'm not wishing the old Stalker was back, but I'm not bias either. Putting their Max HP and HP cap up to where it is blurs Scrapper and Stalker survival. Giving them inherent crits blurs their roles. Neither of those are bad on their own, but together it's iffy. Then go and add utility (demoralize), scaling crits, give them sets that retain their AoE, then make their situational attack just another button to mash and you practically have *NO* distinction. The only real difference is one hits hard from crits and the other just hits hard (and can crit).

I'm not campaigning for changes to be reverted but I wish the people defending Stalkers right now would just plain admit there could have been so many better ways to improve Stalkers than this...

I dunno, I'd say that build is alright...but can you actually come up with a character concept specifically for such a build that insist you not have mez protection and only has lesser attacks? Because an Emp/X Defender with perma Regen/Recovery Aura, buffs and pool power attacks would probably be better in performance and fulfill the exact same concept.

Did you ask what his concept was?

Lol you guys are missing the point of the thread

That doesn't sound like a 'Beastmaster' though...that sounds like a very cruel person with no heart if he can't appreciate a kitty or a puppy.

To me, a Beastmaster is a person who talks to animals. Naturally (the literal meaning of that word) you'd do that in their language.

That isn't to say I wouldn't support simple summoning animations like a special whistle or something.

It's more a 'take your pick of ONE' type of list. Personally, I'm not sure which of those I like more but I'm leaning toward #4.

The prospect of creating small ice slicks for a short time or burn patches after shooting an ammo type enough sounds kinda fun...and because 'bullet time' is what you get with standard ammo. It'd actually be more unique than any attack set. I'd have a hard time deciding which bullets I want to use