Back to forum.wakfu.com

By continuing to browse this website, you consent to the use of cookies, which enable us to offer you customised content and to collect site-visit statistics.
Click on this link for more information on cookies, and to customise your cookie preferences. X

No flash

Why can summons have lock while Gobgob can't?
Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2012-04-04
posté February 28, 2013, 19:49:33 | #1
Why can summons have lock while Gobgob can't? I know this isn't at the right section, but if a mod moves it, at least this will get some attention, because the Osa forum is basically dead.

Please tell me the reasoning behind this, summons can lock while Gobgobs can't...
Basically, "We want Fire to be viable while Earth should be forever a medicore buffing class".


Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté February 28, 2013, 20:10:34 | #2
summons arent automatically controllable...

dr heller has no lock. i dont think boombot does either. greedy dolls do... see a trend?


This post has been edited by BrainInAJar - February 28, 2013, 20:11:05.
Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2012-04-04
posté February 28, 2013, 20:16:20 | #3

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 20:10) *
summons arent -manually- (Please, learn some English) controllable...

dr heller has no lock. i dont think boombot does either. greedy dolls do... see a trend?

Possesion.

And The Block CAN lock, and he can be manually controlled.


Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté February 28, 2013, 20:21:20 | #4

Quote (Moclon @ 28 February 2013 20:16) *

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 20:10) *
summons arent -manually- (Please, learn some English) controllable...

dr heller has no lock. i dont think boombot does either. greedy dolls do... see a trend?

Possesion.

And The Block CAN lock, and he can be manually controlled.
yeah both dolls and summons can be controlled,

but they are not AUTOMATICALLY controlled. meaning that the control does not automatically apply. If your going to be a pedant, at least get some reading comprehension skills. if you are going to modify my text in a quote at least look up the definition of a word first. you can try and look clever responding to something i didn't say then insulting my ability to speak my own native language, but you have to be much more clever then that, kid.

i mean "manually controlled" when i say "controlled" - the "manually" is implied, automatic control is not the same thing; it means that you, without any additional action, get to manually control them. I don't even think "control" would apply if it was not "manual."

back on topic:
summons and dolls - you have to hit them with a spell first. the "manual" control is not automatic.

I am not saying this is why they don't have lock, but it is just a recognizable pattern between those that lock and those that don't. do coneys lock?

of course the exception to this rule is doubles, who are both automatically controllable and lock.


This post has been edited by BrainInAJar - February 28, 2013, 20:35:31.
Reason for edit : this is a funny new insult, those of us from nox never questioned eachothers ability to speak our own native language
Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2012-04-04
posté February 28, 2013, 22:55:33 | #5

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 20:21) *

Quote (Moclon @ 28 February 2013 20:16) *

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 20:10) *
summons arent -manually- (Please, learn some English) controllable...

dr heller has no lock. i dont think boombot does either. greedy dolls do... see a trend?

Possesion.

And The Block CAN lock, and he can be manually controlled.
Random rant... my own native language, but you have to be much more clever then that, kid....More rants
I'd believe English is your native language if you would capitalize correctly, or not get confused with your/you're once every pair of sentences you make.
Please leave this thread immediately, I stopped reading after you said kid, as you lost all of your credibility there, I wont bother reading any further post of yours either.




Also: Doubles can lock.


This post has been edited by Moclon - February 28, 2013, 22:58:59.
Ancient Eradicator * Member Since 2008-06-09
posté February 28, 2013, 23:01:56 | #6
Tat, your argument becomes completely invalid due to this simple notion: Gobgob can only be summoned once a fight (if it desummons itself and you resummon it it has the same hp as when it desummoned itself) and you get hurt if it gets hurt. Do Drhellers harm you if they get hurt? No. Do Cybots harm you if they get hurt? No. Only controllable summon that harms you if it gets hit is the Spirit which is a huge nuking spell. Hence, that example cannot be used. Thus, if gobgobs should have no lock, they also should not harm you. But they have no lock and they can harm you.


Bellaphone Lover * Member Since 2012-05-08
posté February 28, 2013, 23:09:30 | #7
Gobgobs are actually meant to have lock, or at least, your lock. They might have done something dickish like secretly changing it but the Gobgob is supposed to have, resist, lock, dodge and CH equal to the osa, which is now not the case as mine currently only has my dmg, res and dodge while I don't think it has any of my CH or lock, don't know if they decided to change it so the gobgob wouldn't have lock or if it's a bug, the same with how prespic hair was said to apply to gobgob, yet it isn't applied and I haven't seen any notes anywhere they were going to change this, quite annoying really :/


Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté February 28, 2013, 23:10:11 | #8

Quote (Moclon @ 28 February 2013 22:55) *

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 20:21) *

Quote (Moclon @ 28 February 2013 20:16) *

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 20:10) *
summons arent -manually- (Please, learn some English) controllable...

dr heller has no lock. i dont think boombot does either. greedy dolls do... see a trend?

Possesion.

And The Block CAN lock, and he can be manually controlled.
Random rant... my own native language, but you have to be much more clever then that, kid....More rants
I'd believe English is your native language if you would capitalize correctly, or not get confused with your/you're once every pair of sentences you make.
Please leave this thread immediately, I stopped reading after you said kid, as you lost all of your credibility there, I wont bother reading any further post of yours either.




Also: Doubles can lock.
such a pendant. (sic) ;P doesnt matter what you believe. you lost when you thought i meant manually instead of automatically. who needs to work on their english? it aint me. I may need to work on my grammar, but not my understanding of the language. you on the other hand, can't even understand my sentences.

also i called you "kid" because I know how offensive that is to people who think they are all grown up.

and yeah, i already mentioned doubles can lock, maybe you should have finished reading my post before QQing.


This post has been edited by BrainInAJar - February 28, 2013, 23:17:16.
Winged Eradicator * Member Since 2010-02-27
posté February 28, 2013, 23:12:19 | #9
Report it as a bug and get over it.No point in starting an argument over something so silly.


Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté February 28, 2013, 23:13:28 | #10

Quote (GodIsWithUs @ 28 February 2013 23:01) *
Tat, your argument becomes completely invalid due to this simple notion: Gobgob can only be summoned once a fight (if it desummons itself and you resummon it it has the same hp as when it desummoned itself) and you get hurt if it gets hurt. Do Drhellers harm you if they get hurt? No. Do Cybots harm you if they get hurt? No. Only controllable summon that harms you if it gets hit is the Spirit which is a huge nuking spell. Hence, that example cannot be used. Thus, if gobgobs should have no lock, they also should not harm you. But they have no lock and they can harm you.
those are factors that im not even taking into account. like i said i am not saying it cannot lock BECAUSE it is automatically controlled, just that it seems every automatically controlled summon, save for doubles, cannot lock. it is pattern recognition, noticing a correlation.

all the points you make are good arguments why maybe it should lock, but its entirely possible that the only thing that locking and non-locking summons have in common is whether or not they are automatically controlled.


Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2012-04-04
posté February 28, 2013, 23:16:51 | #11

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 23:10) *

Quote (Moclon @ 28 February 2013 22:55) *

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 20:21) *

Quote (Moclon @ 28 February 2013 20:16) *

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 20:10) *
summons arent -manually- (Please, learn some English) controllable...

dr heller has no lock. i dont think boombot does either. greedy dolls do... see a trend?

Possesion.

And The Block CAN lock, and he can be manually controlled.
Random rant... my own native language, but you have to be much more clever then that, kid....More rants
I'd believe English is your native language if you would capitalize correctly, or not get confused with your/you're once every pair of sentences you make.
Please leave this thread immediately, I stopped reading after you said kid, as you lost all of your credibility there, I wont bother reading any further post of yours either.




Also: Doubles can lock.
such a pendant. ;P doesnt matter what you believe. you lost when you thought i meant manually instead of automatically.
I'll dance with you a little longer.
You were actually wrong,

"Summons aren't automatically controllable". - The original sentence, which basically means: "You can control the summons".

Instead, you should've said "Summons aren't automatically controlled", which means "Summons have their own mind"

However, you are so butthurt and mad that you resort to insults.
Oh, and all of the points you made are false, because I forgot to mention:

"Tat, your argument becomes completely invalid due to this simple notion: Gobgob can only be summoned once a fight (if it desummons itself and you resummon it it has the same hp as when it desummoned itself) and you get hurt if it gets hurt. Do Drhellers harm you if they get hurt? No. Do Cybots harm you if they get hurt? No. Only controllable summon that harms you if it gets hit is the Spirit which is a huge nuking spell. Hence, that example cannot be used. Thus, if gobgobs should have no lock, they also should not harm you. But they have no lock and they can harm you."

Work on your English skills.


This post has been edited by Moclon - February 28, 2013, 23:19:13.
Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté February 28, 2013, 23:23:29 | #12

Quote
"Summons aren't automatically controllable". - The original sentence, which basically means: "You can control the summons". Instead, you should've said "Summons aren't automatically controlled", which means "Summons have their own mind"
now you're just embarrassing yourself.

really your problem is between -able and -ed suffixes? clearly you have not had enough real conversation with English speakers to understand that the two suffixes are colloquially interchangeable in instances such as my sentence. and if that was the case why did you change automatically to manually in your quote of my post?

you started the insults by telling me to learn some of the only language I have ever spoken. your use of the word butthurt invalidates any claims to not being a "kid." doesn't matter how old you are.



Quote
Oh, and all of the points you made are false, because I forgot to mention:

I already responded to that. they are interesting points but tangential at best. i think we call this argument a "red herring." here is a link for a description of that term: Click

The real argument is that its SUPPOSED to have all the stats of its creator as sharkbiite mentioned previous, and thus it should be treated like a double.


This post has been edited by BrainInAJar - February 28, 2013, 23:45:15.
Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2012-04-04
posté February 28, 2013, 23:26:44 | #13
I give up, you remind me of myself when I was younger, I used to go around on the internet and tell people I was 25 and was married. Heh.


BoT; Did Gobgob have Lock before a few patches ago? If so, when did it get removed?


Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté February 28, 2013, 23:28:16 | #14
looks like you still do. (so to speak)

you dont remind me of me, cause i am not a pedant. and I understand English.

also so you don't make the mistake in the future:

if something is "controllable" this can be interpreted as "there is a capability to control it" which could apply to later using a spell to control it, and if this were the only interpretation you would be right, i am using bad english.

OR it can be interpreted as "there is an ability to control it." which is how I meant it. and given the procededing "automatically" you should have been able to determine that the first usage didn't apply. instead you decided automatically didn't apply.

there is no AUTOMATIC ability to control it, like there is with a dr heller, or a boombot.

now if English weren't my first language I might hold back on insulting someones use of it. maybe just a touch. there's a lot of nuances in the english language that can be hard to pick up. A lot of meaning is imbued to words by the context in which they are used. There's more to it than capital letters and using the right your and you're.


I came in here to answer your question, I drew parallels between boombots, dr hellers, and gobgob - looked at what they had in common: you control them immediately, and they can't lock. both are undeniable truths. you ask a question, you get an answer - that you don't understand. and so you start attacking.

real mature.

i admit i blow up a bit when people start getting insulting.


Quote (Moclon @ 28 February 2013 23:26) *
BoT; Did Gobgob have Lock before a few patches ago? If so, when did it get removed?

I'm not 100% but i think the answer is no. I think like most though he only got used at low levels, or situationally, like to block vampiros push, so there isn't going to be a whole lot of data.


This post has been edited by BrainInAJar - February 28, 2013, 23:52:57.
Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2012-04-04
posté February 28, 2013, 23:51:37 | #15

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 23:28) *
Looks like you still do, son. (so to speak)

You don't remind me of me, because I am not a pedant. And I understand English.

Also so you don't make the mistake in the future:

If something is "controllable" this can be interpreted as "there is a capability to control it" which could apply to later using a spell to control it, and if this were the only interpretation you would be right, I am using bad English.

OR it can be interpreted as "there is an ability to control it." which is how I meant it . and given the procededing You didn't even bother here, did you? "automatically" you should have been able to determine that the first usage didn't apply. instead you decided automatically didn't apply.

There is no AUTOMATIC ability to control it, like with a dr heller, or a boombot. I just..

Now if English wasn't[/s] my first language[s] I might hold back on insulting someones use of it First past (wasn't) and now present (might). . maybe just a touch.
Tell me dear sir, if you are an adult and I am a mere pedant kid, why are you still arguing with me? Your posts look like the results from Google Translate.
Please, stop this madness, your English is terrible and you're calling me a pedant while you're fighting with me over "NO, I AM RIGHTU AREZ WRONGZ AEGIEANGOEIGNQA)EIGNQ)IGNQ".


Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté February 28, 2013, 23:53:55 | #16
seriously. there's more to it than capitals. put a comma after my also, you can keep your grammar without losing content. you are too focused on form and not on meaning. correcting someone's grammar doesn't help you understand what they are trying to say. your teachers did you wrong.

i type fast and don't bother with capitals or checking my grammar on the internet. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET.

and I am argumentative. being argumentative is not necessarily a mark of age. being unable to admit when you are wrong isn't either. but using the word "butthurt" in a sentence, that is a mark of youth.


This post has been edited by BrainInAJar - February 28, 2013, 23:57:59.
Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2012-04-04
posté February 28, 2013, 23:57:14 | #17

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 23:53) *
Seriously. There's more to it than capitals.Put a comma after my also, you can keep your grammar without losing content.

I type fast and don't bother with capitals or checking my grammar on the internet. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET.
Then don't go around bragging about your perfect understanding of the English language.
Also, sentences that I lined over are sentences which do not make any sense at all in the way they are written.


and I am argumentative. being argumentative is not necessarily a mark of age. being unable to admit when you are wrong isn't either. but using the word "butthurt" in a sentence, that is a mark of youth.


"WELCOME TO THE INTERNET"
A moment afterwards he edits in:
"Using the word "butthurt" in a sentence is a mark of youth".


This post has been edited by Moclon - February 28, 2013, 23:59:09.
Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté February 28, 2013, 23:59:30 | #18
oh i understand the grammar fine, i just dont use it when im doing something as informal as typing on the internet.

I mean you have used the internet elsewhere right? its a common practice to throw grammar to the wind.


Quote (Moclon @ 28 February 2013 23:57) *
Also, sentences that I lined over are sentences which do not make any sense at all in the way they are written.

this should tell you something of your own language skills. give me a few minutes ill explain them for you. through edits, so watch this space. I almost always edit my posts.


Quote
Now if English wasn't my first language I might hold back on insulting someones use of it
translates to: since it is clear English is not your first language, perhaps you should show restraint on insulting other's use of it.

I apologize that mixing my past and present tense confused you so.


Quote
Also so you don't make the mistake in the future:
there should be a comma. the translation means "in addition to what I said prior - For the reason of ensuring you do not again make the mistake explained in the following text:"

which was followed by my explanation of how you were mistaken in your understanding of the word "controllable."


This post has been edited by BrainInAJar - March 01, 2013, 00:05:42.
Eccentric Moogrr * Member Since 2012-04-04
posté March 01, 2013, 00:02:07 | #19

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 23:59) *
oh i understand the grammar fine, i just dont use it when im doing something as informal as typing on the internet.

I mean you have used the internet elsewhere right? its a common practice to throw grammar to the wind.
Sharkbiite and GodIsWithus, just a quick example of random internet peeps, bothering to capitalize.

Also, you said "capitols" instead of "capitals" (Google the differences, if you'd like) and (again..) made sentences which don't make sense at all.


Lord Madgobb * Member Since 2012-06-02
posté March 01, 2013, 00:03:32 | #20

Quote (Moclon @ 01 March 2013 00:02) *

Quote (BrainInAJar @ 28 February 2013 23:59) *
oh i understand the grammar fine, i just dont use it when im doing something as informal as typing on the internet.

I mean you have used the internet elsewhere right? its a common practice to throw grammar to the wind.
Sharkbiite and GodIsWithus, just a quick example of random internet peeps, bothering to capitalize.

Also, you said "capitols" instead of "capitals" (Google the differences, if you'd like) and (again..) made sentences which don't make sense at all.
yeah, i know i misspelled them, that's why i corrected them in an edit. i know the differences without googling them, thanks.

good for them, i don't bother.


This post has been edited by BrainInAJar - March 01, 2013, 00:06:19.