The "No damage" tank idea... where the hell is it from?

[Justaris]

It also bears mentioning explicitly that damage is an integral part of how threat calculations work in CoH, so even if one were building 'only' for tanking, damage would still be an important consideration for any Tanker who wants to hold aggro. 

[ironjoe]

I've never seen a no damage tank. I've seen tanks that have skipped things like different defenses for more offense so I guess they were more offensively oriented and might have been happier with a brute or scrapper if they were more familiar with the game but never a no damage one. In my posts about tanks I do over emphasize the agro control portion of the AT bu that is to get into peoples minds that aspect of the AT. I've run into many that come from other MMO's and just don't get that aspect of the AT until explained further. Even while I get into explaining that my own tank is SD/SS and with AAO+Rage+Assault adding +Dam and +ToHit to his attacks making him one of the more damaging types.  At the same time I do recognize his damage is dwarfed by a well slotted blaster but I'm still hitting stuff while understanding my role in the team.

[Rathulfr]

On 9/22/2019 at 7:04 PM, ZeeHero said:

I have run into people in my time playing CO and COH who build tanks intentionally to do as little damage as possible- and do this every time they build a tank. I cannot understand this at all since it basically destroys the fun. What's wrong with a little damage? it will only make your character better. you wont have to sacrifice noticeable survivability either.

I've always taken advantage of using the dual builds approach offered by COH.  On my tankers, Build 1 is usually my solo/DPS build, which I often call "Scranker" (the term predates Brutes), and Build 2 is my team/taunt build, which I call "Tanker".  Build 1 prioritizes damage, Build 2 prioritizes defense/resistance and aggro management. 

 

It's a min/max approach that's similar to the talents/specialization model of WoW.  In WoW, when you're in tank spec, you do damage, but just enough to maintain aggro (threat).  That's the role you assume, while the rest of the team assumes the DPS and support roles.  But when you're in DPS spec, you do a lot more damage, and you're not expected to maintain aggro (unless the main or off tank goes down).

 

Both builds/specs do damage (as you said, damage is kind of the point in a "defeat the bad guys" game), but each one has a different emphasis.  I routinely switch builds as needed, and often will play the Scranker build with teams, too, if I'm not in the mood to purely "tank", per se.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Rathulfr

[Radiaria]

Some people actually like builds that do zero damage. 

 

There are quite a few tanks who intentionally take the lowest damaging powersets (think Dark Melee) to maximize their survivability, and chose another primary for maximum survive again, so they just never die and are a clearcut role and they just want to stand in crowds all day long and laugh at them try to kill you.

 

Do I personally find this effective or fun? Not really, but there is definitely a person for it!

[Heraclea]

1 hour ago, 3333053222 said:

Some people actually like builds that do zero damage. 

 

There are quite a few tanks who intentionally take the lowest damaging powersets (think Dark Melee) to maximize their survivability, and chose another primary for maximum survive again, so they just never die and are a clearcut role and they just want to stand in crowds all day long and laugh at them try to kill you.

 

Dark Melee is not that bad, but it does add a lot of survivability.  Solos just fine, and with enough recharge the AoEs are up fairly often.

[Radiaria]

1 hour ago, Heraclea said:

Dark Melee is not that bad, but it does add a lot of survivability.  Solos just fine, and with enough recharge the AoEs are up fairly often.

Comparatively, there are much better sets to deal damage both in ST and AOE, and have everything this has and much better except for the -acc and the heal.