[ QUOTE ]
This may get the text changed before the AT but still:
Note that ranged thing? But where is the range? Odd no? Been there 5 years and I personally never seen people ask where the range is at unless they roll SS and take Epics.
Not that range will do anything to improve the AT but still odd.
[/ QUOTE ]
They've changed the text at least twice before.
First to remove any reference to Tankers being 'second only to Scrappers in sheer melee power' because Blasters made that only half-true and CoV made it a blatant lie, and second was to further slant them as being defensive and to specifically say they're lacking at long range.
This is what it now says in game:
[ QUOTE ]
The Tanker can take it and dish it out all at once. The Tanker primarily can absorb vast amounts of damage, and hold his own in a fist fight. But the Tanker lacks any long range punch. The Tanker would prefer just to charge straight ahead anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Compared to what it used to be:
[ QUOTE ]
The Tanker is the irresistible force combined with an immovable object. This Archetype can take and absorb all sorts of damage. The Tanker though is not totally invulnerable, but his skills allow the other Archetypes to play their parts, too. The Tanker is a devastating hand to hand combatant, and ranks only second to the Scrapper in sheer melee power. The Tanker possesses some ranged abilities, though far below the Blaster and the Defender. The Tankers proudly stand in the front lines of battle in order to protect their comrades and, of course, the innocent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Notice how Tankers went from "devastating hand to hand" and being "second only to the Scrapper" to merely "holding their own"?
Amazing what Brutes can do to the AT's self image. Or rather, amazing how the developers will compromise the vision of the Tanker AT's concept and role just to sell boxes of CoV.
Me, I'd rather play something with devastating hand to hand combat than something that just holds their own. Holding your own doesn't sound very super to me. And just because the devs ran out on Tankers for Brutes, doesn't mean I will.
.
If we're going to go with the 5-year old descriptions of the ATs, then Blaster's HP should be lowered, Controllers should be able to "route the enemies away", and Scrappers should have no ranged attacks. After all, all of those are mentioned in the AT descriptions off the main page.
They were invalid day one the game was released. Heck, whole powers listed in the power descriptions in the manuals weren't in the game at release. At the time the game came out, Tankers did less damage (pre-slotting, since ED wasn't in effect back then) than they do now, yet were still listed as medium damage.
As for your calculations, can you explain them a bit more? How does a Scrapper at 1.181 ds go to 0.68, then to 100%, whereas a Tanker goes from 0.8 go to 0.3 go to 30%? If 0.68 is 100%, shouldn't the Tanker at 0.3 be 0.44?
Also, is that truly taking into account the fact that many control powers have very little damage associated with them? Sure, Fire Control might be 'medium' damage, but I doubt you'll find the same to be true of Earth or Ice Control.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
If we're going to go with the 5-year old descriptions of the ATs, then Blaster's HP should be lowered
[/ QUOTE ]
I was not quoting 5 year old text.
http://www.cityofheroes.com/game_inf...rchetypes.html
[ QUOTE ]
Me, I'd rather play something with devastating hand to hand combat than something that just holds their own. Holding your own doesn't sound very super to me. And just because the devs ran out on Tankers for Brutes, doesn't mean I will.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are options available to you that would allow you to be devastating hand to hand, as so many others have pointed out to you.
I've tried to figure out if you actually believe you are in a world where everyone is with you against the mean evil dev's who abandoned tankers and put all the emphasis onto brutes, or if you just like to repeat yourself a lot. Your need to make this a big dramatic crusade that you're "taking on" for "oppressed" tankers shows you really do want to be a super hero in real life, and I don't know whether that is just because you are extremely bored, or whether you have some kind of mental deficiency.
In either case I know you're not going to stop repeating the same exact text over and over again regardless of where you post, and I realize that makes my post here superfluous as well, but yet we both persist. You, for a reason I've decided I can't figure out... and me because I'm at work and enjoy feeding the troll. It amuses me.
[ QUOTE ]
As for your calculations, can you explain them a bit more? How does a Scrapper at 1.181 ds go to 0.68, then to 100%, whereas a Tanker goes from 0.8 go to 0.3 go to 30%? If 0.68 is 100%, shouldn't the Tanker at 0.3 be 0.44?
[/ QUOTE ]
I messed things up a bit by attempting to use .5 as the "true lowest damage", but that lowest is so conditional that we all know it's not real (controllers without containment and without pets and without secondary help, may as well include with the planets aligned)
True min should be .65 (defenders) and was what I was going to use and what I started calculating from, seems I missed a few corrections.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, is that truly taking into account the fact that many control powers have very little damage associated with them
[/ QUOTE ]
It's very hard to fully describe controller damgage in few lines. Immobs do are balanced as real attacks although their end is 50% higher than normal (paying up for the immob I guess.)
If so chosen controllers have access to 3 melee attacks quickly though (if they are bold to do so)
Fighting Boxing+Kick
Any Travel Pool of choice's Attack.
These are at .5 but also affected by containment to bring them to 1, if you start the ST Chain with an immobilize. Yea "pool powers should not be counted bla bla" but they are there and they have access to them and the modifiers apply to them.
And off course, there is pet damage. Again: controller offensive is hard to talk about in few lines but I am sure (from experience) that if I was to do an in deep analysis numbers would prove I been understating the modifiers (unless I'm on my plant's.... that flytrap sucks)
[ QUOTE ]
My full proposal for mode switching fills it with penalties, like not being able to switch really on the fly, it being a click that forces you into the mode for a predefined period of time that may be longer than desired, not being able to switch mid fight and scrapper mode being severely weaker than scrapper in survivability but and do no criticals, just the equivalent of 1.05 melee damage (scrappers doing 1.125 without criticals.)
So the scrapper would still be superior but the tanker gets to adapt to an offensive role if needed. I had reactions that ranged from "Why play a scrapper?" to "Why bother with that and not just roll a scrapper?" that made me think the penalties were just right.
[/ QUOTE ]
I honestly can't consider that penalty enough. Both "OMG, I can't return to Tank Mode, I'll just keep slaughtering enemies at my higher pace," and, "OMG, I'm stuck in Tank Mode, I'll just keep surviving perfectly well with practically no threat to me until the switch power recharges" both don't seem like things that would stop me from saying, "why bother with rolling a Scrapper (other than powersets, assuming proliferation doesn't take care of that)?"
If you get one highly adaptable melee AT that can 80-90% fill the niche role of the other melee AT while still being able to provide something to a team regardless of length of time to switch, while still providing 100% of its own niche role in its other stance, it's going to beat out the other AT that can only fill its niche 100% and the other...what? 50%? Less?
Again, the only solution would have been to have only 1 melee AT that could switch roles via stances, but that's a decision past 5 years ago.
[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, I know it's kinda weird for me of all people to be pointing to the topic drift, but I think it's worth underscoring that this thread, from Ultimo, is about the idea of adding ranged attacks to tankers, which I'm against because it diminishes the distinction between ATs, because it gives more survivability to an AT that doesn't need it, because it's tricky to implement and because I can't see what the game really gains from it.
In this strand of topic drift, we're discussing JB's favourite bugaboo of 'Tankers Need Moar Damage' where he tries to rearrange the order of the words and hope we don't notice, which prompts me to remember something I did the last time this happened. I was playing my non-IO'd shield/ss tanker, in Crey's Folly, and thought I'd see how 'slowly' I defeated enemies. Not 'how much slower than a scrapper', but how much actual time it took me to kill things. With fairly standard slotting, no hasten, no recharge in attacks,
The normal tactic of this character is to leap into a +0 spawn and shield charge them and then kill the lieutenant that was still standing. Since getting Foot Stomp, it's become leap in, Foot Stomp, Shield Charge, one-shot the remaining lieutenant. I do this primarily because it's fun and it makes me giggle to watch a large pack of freaks drop all at once. However, that's not really all that clear - after all, shield charge takes time to recharge, so I can't do it every single spawn. I alternate by bashing faces of lone or paired bosses in the area. Plus 'the activation time of two attacks' isn't really meaningful data for this little curiosity of mine.
I waited until Rage was ready to go, then clicked it and closed in on the a trio of red (+1) freakshow tanks and just laid into them. Between that point and the crash of Rage, I killed all three bosses, killed one that had rezzed, and was halfway through killing the next that had rezzed. So in 90 seconds, that's 4.5 bosses. 20 seconds for a +1 boss.
How much faster do I have to be before it's good enough? Twenty [censored] seconds.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's awesome Talen, however how many people who are trying out a new AT are going to wait 38 levels (footstomp). Maybe 39-40 (footstomp fully slotted). Hell Shield Charge and Rage don't come into play till what mid-late 20's?
Sorry to side-track this, but it does show one of the biggest flaws in the "balance" designed currently in the game. Tanks are one of, if not the latest "shiners" in the game. You really don't feel very tankerly, and I really don't have fun with them till the mid 20's. DO's and TOs are next to, if not totally useless as Defense or Resistance enhancers. Late to the party offense. Those are just 2 of the reasons tanks are late bloomers.
Tanks are the only AT I've played that I don't feel their essence within the first 5-7 levels. That's a problem IMHO.
Help make America #1 in Broadband: www.broadband.gov
Take the survey/test (like a Census for Broadband): http://broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/
[ QUOTE ]
If you get one highly adaptable melee AT that can 80-90%
[/ QUOTE ]
And about 75% of the scrapper survivability.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, the only solution would have been to have only 1 melee AT that could switch roles via stances, but that's a decision past 5 years ago.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, it is something that could be added on top of the AT without disrupting its current feel, it would just be an addition on top. Again, main reason I'd not go that way is because Kheledians already do that. ALL of that. They can be blasters now and Tankers 2 seconds later. Funny thing, people still play blasters and tankers despite having unlocked kheledians!
[ QUOTE ]
The weird thing is, Mc, because you're repeating that in an odd colour, I'm finding it really easy to not read. O.o
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT. I have yet to even try and read it. I see it quoted after everything else, and odd color, and apparently not related to the reply and my mind just skips it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we're going to go with the 5-year old descriptions of the ATs, then Blaster's HP should be lowered
[/ QUOTE ]
I was not quoting 5 year old text.
http://www.cityofheroes.com/game_inf...rchetypes.html
[/ QUOTE ]
And off that page, you can see the same things that I was showing. My point was that that text hasn't been edited in about 5 years. Sure, it's still there. That doesn't make it current.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
It's a question of balance but not balancing in a vacuum. Allowing tankers to become part time scrappers makes them the melee archetype of choice in every case.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hense the stated drawbacks that would balance out the equasion. We are talking about "Approching" scrapper level damage with a major decrease in the ability to mitigate damage. On top of that your statment had nothing to do with my quote. In that I was speaking of not making a change because of the "Uproar" from another group. That should never be a reason to or not to balance.
I am not saying balance in a vacuum, I am saying balance without the influence of potential people complaining.
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore the whole argument of tanker offense is based on the fact that we are not really focusing on tankers in the first place.
[/ QUOTE ]
As a Fire/SS I have no problem with Offense, I can hit 240% damage buff on my own.. The one thing I do see is, as I stated, the lack of a redundant role on a team for a Tank. Having them be able to fill in a bit more Melee damage would allow for a couple of different roles on a team and perhaps some more diversity.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a question of balance but not balancing in a vacuum. Allowing tankers to become part time scrappers makes them the melee archetype of choice in every case.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hense the stated drawbacks that would balance out the equasion. We are talking about "Approching" scrapper level damage with a major decrease in the ability to mitigate damage. On top of that your statment had nothing to do with my quote. In that I was speaking of not making a change because of the "Uproar" from another group. That should never be a reason to or not to balance.
I am not saying balance in a vacuum, I am saying balance without the influence of potential people complaining.
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore the whole argument of tanker offense is based on the fact that we are not really focusing on tankers in the first place.
[/ QUOTE ]
As a Fire/SS I have no problem with Offense, I can hit 240% damage buff on my own.. The one thing I do see is, as I stated, the lack of a redundant role on a team for a Tank. Having them be able to fill in a bit more Melee damage would allow for a couple of different roles on a team and perhaps some more diversity.
[/ QUOTE ]
As of now i fail to see what the problem is with multiple tankers on a same team. People said there is no benefits to that? I kinda disagree. Maybe true that you do not need extra agro control provided by extra tankers but still, any tanker brings over the top survivability to a team.
4 tankers on a team? See them as 4 scrappers with a little less damage but with higher hps and very low maintenance. Most high level tankers have at least one or two aoes/pbaoes/cones, you let the 4 of them stack all these together and spawns will be obliterated fast enough, there will be no runners, and there are no chances whatsoever that a ranged or supports char will get annoyed by foes.
It may not be the best team setting to have 4 tankers but i do not see it any more bad than having say 4 scrappers or 4 brutes or 4 stalkers. The combination sure can work if players are willing to work together. You can select one main tank ( the toughest one against the engaged mob ) to take the lead or you simply can have the 4 tankers jump in together or even have them split into two groups.
Unless you are only caring about having the most optimal/fastest team, i see no problems with having many tankers on a team.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
Hense the stated drawbacks that would balance out the equasion.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the drawbacks are not enough of a drawback to make going with a scrapper preferable which creates in imbalance. If I am running a team and I have a choice between inviting a scrapper or a tanker that can effectively be a scrapper if the need arises I will invite the tanker every time because it is a more strategically sound decision.
[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying balance in a vacuum, I am saying balance without the influence of potential people complaining.
[/ QUOTE ]
Time and again changes have been made to this game and then tweaked for the better based in part on outcry from the player base. Bear in mind that any input is normally backed up by data mining before subsequent are made but the change started "in the trenches" so to speak.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you get one highly adaptable melee AT that can 80-90%
[/ QUOTE ]
And about 75% of the scrapper survivability.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which still doesn't sound like a bad penalty to me. It'll be perfectly fine both solo and teamed, especially considering Tankers have better AoE mitigation tools as part of their secondaries, as well as buffs on a team, while still being able to manage aggro like a champ.
Unless you mean to lower their threat value and/or remove Gauntlet while in "Scrapper" mode.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, the only solution would have been to have only 1 melee AT that could switch roles via stances, but that's a decision past 5 years ago.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, it is something that could be added on top of the AT without disrupting its current feel, it would just be an addition on top. Again, main reason I'd not go that way is because Kheledians already do that. ALL of that. They can be blasters now and Tankers 2 seconds later. Funny thing, people still play blasters and tankers despite having unlocked kheledians!
[/ QUOTE ]
Probably the biggest reason why people don't play Kheldians as full replacements for Tankers or Blasters is the limited, non-progressing number of attacks. They get what they get and that's it, when it comes to those modes.
Here, you're getting a fully progressing attack chain with a full amount of both defensive and offensive abilities. It's a very different scenario.
Lastly, and ultimately (for me), I don't think going ape-[censored] offensive (but not quite Scrapper) with less defence than a Scrapper says "Tanker" to me at all. You'd have to change the name of the AT while you're at it.
IOW I don't think it should be implemented like that now. Would've been great some long time ago.
The thing is not that its "bad" to have 4 tankers, the thing is just what you do if there is nothing but tanks looking.
Blasters, duh.
Scrappers, duh.
Kheledians, duh.
Controllers can bring much more damgae than tankers to teams. Each additional controller makes the team safer than the first, albeit you may find the point where its redundant its due to lack of stronger challenges.
Defenders? Depends. The only one that can't boost damage in some way is Force Fields and Empaths can only boost 2 team-mates reliably, other than that all defenders can boost damage to a point where the more the better. Each additional defender makes the team safer than the first, albeit you may find the point where its redundant its due to lack of stronger challenges.
Tankers? Well, they can hold their own, may require a bit less babysitting than scrappers and dish between 64% to 70% of the scrapper/blaster damage, which will get the job done, although nowhere near as well as multiples of any other AT.
Also although one tanker makes the team safe, the second tanker rarely is needed to make the team safer. Stronger challenges wont make the second tanker more useful, unless taking over after one tank falls is considered useful.
Bigger spawns may make multiple tankers useful but there is no reason to fight larger groups due to target caps. It's easier and much more efficient to pursue harder content than more numerous content. Even if you pursue larger spawns the spawns required to justify a third may cause too splash damage for non-tankers to handle unless they happen to be scrappers and kheledians.
So yes, the second tank "works", there are situations where you may be able to split the teams but its very map dependent. Ambushes are not used enough but when they are they may make a second (although not a third) tank shine.
In every situation its better to get more of the other AT than more tanks UNLESS the player behind the keyboards of the other ATs plainly sucks, but thats another topic and not one AT balance is subject to as the same can be said about taking a tanker at all if he plainly sucks.
[ QUOTE ]
As a Fire/SS I have no problem with Offense, I can hit 240% damage buff on my own.. The one thing I do see is, as I stated, the lack of a redundant role on a team for a Tank.
[/ QUOTE ]
What follows is an amalgam of some of the ideas tossed around by various people in the tanker forums. It's kind of like stances and would help make multiple tankers on one team more useful.
I think a Competition/Opposition buff effect that is applied as a tanker attacks would be great. Say for the first attack in melee the tanker and all teammates within a certain radius of the tanker (large enough to keep squishies outside of AoE splash damage) get a 120 second defense buff. The buff power would then have a cool down period of 110 to 115 seconds before being available again. This would mean that in extended battles the buff remains in place as long as the tanker is still attacking.
Fix it so that buffs from the same tanker will not stack but those from multiple tankers will. The code for this already exists somewhere in the game so it shouldn't be too difficult.
Here's a nod to Johnny, allow Competition/Opposition to afford solo tanks a built in Assault buff (say 12%) that switches to Maneuvers when teamed. This way the mechanic would help tankers both in teams and out as well as be indicative of how their strategy changes for each situation. On a team they hold back because someone might get hurt, that someone being one of their teammates, but solo they can really let go and hang the collateral damage.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
Which still doesn't sound like a bad penalty to me. It'll be perfectly fine both solo and teamed, especially considering Tankers have better AoE mitigation tools as part of their secondaries, as well as buffs on a team, while still being able to manage aggro like a champ.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I recall in that post (it was long i just scratched my memory here) noting secondary effect and taunt shutdown while in the offensive mode.
[ QUOTE ]
Probably the biggest reason why people don't play Kheldians as full replacements for Tankers or Blasters is the limited, non-progressing number of attacks. They get what they get and that's it, when it comes to those modes.
[/ QUOTE ]
They get enough to do full attack chains.
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, and ultimately (for me), I don't think going ape-[censored] offensive (but not quite Scrapper) with less defence than a Scrapper says "Tanker" to me at all. You'd have to change the name of the AT while you're at it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it does double way. Many MMOs tanks have the mode precisely due to the mutli-tank issues, so mechanically it makes sense.
Conceptually, its not that rare when tough guy tanks go in blind rages and become much more vulnerable but devastating offensively (compared to their norm) something Rage sort of mimics for Super Strength. I'm not sure why the devs never gave Rage a persistent survivability debuff, though.
[ QUOTE ]
Conceptually, its not that rare when tough guy tanks go in blind rages and become much more vulnerable but devastating offensively (compared to their norm) something Rage sort of mimics for Super Strength. I'm not sure why the devs never gave Rage a persistent survivability debuff, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
We have that, it's called Fury.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
I see what you mean. A Tank might need to be in Melee range in order to perform effectively anyway (Energy Absorption, Invincibility and Rise to the Challenge come to mind). I assume what you're going for is completely conceptual, and not a buff for Tanks at all. I agree for the most part... but I think Ancillary pools will be as good as it gets. It is a long time to wait... But, I don't see how the devs could work in other attacks into the existing sets without upsetting people. It's a nice thought, though.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which still doesn't sound like a bad penalty to me. It'll be perfectly fine both solo and teamed, especially considering Tankers have better AoE mitigation tools as part of their secondaries, as well as buffs on a team, while still being able to manage aggro like a champ.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I recall in that post (it was long i just scratched my memory here) noting secondary effect and taunt shutdown while in the offensive mode.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like its own headache right there.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably the biggest reason why people don't play Kheldians as full replacements for Tankers or Blasters is the limited, non-progressing number of attacks. They get what they get and that's it, when it comes to those modes.
[/ QUOTE ]
They get enough to do full attack chains.
[/ QUOTE ]
Only assuming one of: having weaker attacks, using IOs, or spamming Hasten. Especially for Dwarf.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, and ultimately (for me), I don't think going ape-[censored] offensive (but not quite Scrapper) with less defence than a Scrapper says "Tanker" to me at all. You'd have to change the name of the AT while you're at it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it does double way. Many MMOs tanks have the mode precisely due to the mutli-tank issues, so mechanically it makes sense.
Conceptually, its not that rare when tough guy tanks go in blind rages and become much more vulnerable but devastating offensively (compared to their norm) something Rage sort of mimics for Super Strength. I'm not sure why the devs never gave Rage a persistent survivability debuff, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
WoW at least has the decency to call their stance-based class something other than Tanker.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conceptually, its not that rare when tough guy tanks go in blind rages and become much more vulnerable but devastating offensively (compared to their norm) something Rage sort of mimics for Super Strength. I'm not sure why the devs never gave Rage a persistent survivability debuff, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
We have that, it's called Fury.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really the same, Fury is like the hulk, it just gets stronger and stronger as it goes.
The blinding rage that leaves you open to everything is a bit different, it does not increase with time, it has a maximum and it tends to be all or nothing. It tends to be accompanied with the death of the hero in question just as he lands the last blow, though.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conceptually, its not that rare when tough guy tanks go in blind rages and become much more vulnerable but devastating offensively (compared to their norm) something Rage sort of mimics for Super Strength. I'm not sure why the devs never gave Rage a persistent survivability debuff, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
We have that, it's called Fury.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really the same, Fury is like the hulk, it just gets stronger and stronger as it goes.
The blinding rage that leaves you open to everything is a bit different, it does not increase with time, it has a maximum and it tends to be all or nothing. It tends to be accompanied with the death of the hero in question just as he lands the last blow, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like Issue1 Rage version of Superstrength.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like Issue1 Rage version of Superstrength.
[/ QUOTE ]
It used to have a persistent self debuff?
No but i think the very first version of Rage had the player dropping all toggles and be disoriented when buff duration expired. ( maybe im mixing stuff with the old Unstoppable power... All this is so far behind... ).
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, ranged attacks are their own form of defense. Adding them to an archetype that already possesses superior defense is overkill and invalidates the other archetypes in the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nerf Hurl and Epic pools!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
A single ranged attack is useful for runners and the epic pools are not offered until level 41. Adding dominator-like sets to tanker secondaries would give them 2 to 3 ranged attacks by level 10.
Also Johnny would be in the tanker forums screaming that tanker ranged damage needs to be increased because dominators, corruptors and blasters can deliver more damage.
If the idea is to improve tanker offense let's do so in a meaningful way that does not try and turn them into another archetype in the process.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat