Clarity Around Call to Arms Support

Call to arms has anomalous behavior, can we get some clarity about how many Warcries it can support? There seems to be quite a bit of confusion. I think many people thought it would function like cwdt, and trigger sequentially along the item links.

By its very definition....it CAN'T be sequential. "All your warcries share a cooldown" means that every single warcry comes on and off cd at the same time; if it were sequential you would only be able to ever use 1 warcry.

No limit on the number of supported warcries. "A supported warcry will trigger", with no line saying "max: x warcries".

At least that's how it SHOULD be working. I think GGG maybe screwed something up when they programmed it because they do NOT like simultaneous triggers, and yet they created a gem that can only work correctly IF it were a simultaneous trigger.


CWDT is fundamentally different in that:
"Multiple different spells....will have their own damage counter and cooldown". Keywords: OWN cooldown, not SHARED.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

By its very definition....it CAN'T be sequential.

Well, it can, just not simultaneously. It could use the first one, then when the (shared) cooldowns are up, use the second one, etc.

That's what I feel it should be doing, anyway.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

By its very definition....it CAN'T be sequential.

Well, it can, just not simultaneously. It could use the first one, then when the (shared) cooldowns are up, use the second one, etc.

That's what I feel it should be doing, anyway.

Why would anyone ever use a gem like that? Cooldowns on warcries are insanely long, and what you suggest is that CTA would use only ONE of them per cooldown? By the time it uses the next warcry, the first warcry would be off so there would be no overlapping of warcries (which is kind of the point).

And CTA adds to the cooldown time as well, making it even worse for a situation like you describe.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

By its very definition....it CAN'T be sequential.

Well, it can, just not simultaneously. It could use the first one, then when the (shared) cooldowns are up, use the second one, etc.

That's what I feel it should be doing, anyway.

Why would anyone ever use a gem like that? Cooldowns on warcries are insanely long, and what you suggest is that CTA would use only ONE of them per cooldown? By the time it uses the next warcry, the first warcry would be off so there would be no overlapping of warcries (which is kind of the point).

And CTA adds to the cooldown time as well, making it even worse for a situation like you describe.

Well it certainly seems unreasonable, to me, to get automatic casting and instant stacking of 3+ warcries from one gem.

I'm well aware what I said was not the apex of anyone's power fantasy. You'd also be free to continue using it as it works now, by just...not linking it to more warcries.

I mean, you can link CWDT to five unsupported offensive spells, too. Why would you do that? You probably wouldn't (save for maybe some unique that might exist to support that specific thing, I don't know). That's okay. I'm not telling you do it, or saying it's a good build. I'm saying I think that's how the gem should function if you happen to plug the gems in.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

Well it certainly seems unreasonable, to me, to get automatic casting and instant stacking of 3+ warcries from one gem.

This makes absolutely no sense......you DO realize that the entire point of this (and automation) is PRECISELY to automate multiple things that players were already casting instantly/overlapping, as a form of QoL much like the flask enchants? Devs literally said this was the reason for these supports in both the teasers and interviews.

The tradeoff, of course, is that you CAN'T "time" the warcries being linked to use in the proper order. Plus, they have collectively increased cooldowns.

It's not just "something for nothing" like you suggest, its fulfilling a function that players ALREADY were doing, with penalties, in order to ease the "flask piano" effect of warcries.


The support you describe would ONLY be beneficial if you linked to a single warcry, and that's only because they removed lmb. Even then, it would be DoA with the reduced cooldown rate and unpredictability. Folks that are using only 1 warcry in a build are generally using emergency enduring cry heals, or timed general's cry, both of which would just be a straight up nerf or impossible with CTA.

regarding your CWDT example: you ABSOLUTELY DO link multiple spells to CWDT. Most spellcasters link 3-4 unsupported "offensive" spells to cwdt. Nearly every one of my builds has at least two cwdt setups, one for defense and one for offense.

Ex: CWDT + frostbomb/wave + purifying flame + curse/third skill.

And then likely you'd have a second setup with CWDT + guard + maybe even phase run


Warcries are not so powerful that they deserve some kind of different treatment to all of that....

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense......you DO realize that the entire point of this (and automation) is PRECISELY to automate multiple things that players were already casting instantly/overlapping, as a form of QoL much like the flask enchants? Devs literally said this was the reason for these supports in both the teasers and interviews.

You're welcome to your personal assessment of "the point". Please understand that that's what it is. Others are not obligated to uphold your preferences.

I see the point of this gem as assigning a cost to automation. I do not see the point of the gem as providing people who want to automate multiple warcries maximum utility in doing so.

Players were, as you say, both autocasting and overlapping. But separately. LMB wasn't using three skills, it was using one. So if you think that's what the gem is there to account for, then one skill autocasting should be fine.

At the very least, I think "using multiple warcries at once" and "automating the use of warcries" should be two separate support gems. That would allow you to automate two in a 4-link; that seems okay.

I understand you think the lack of control over timing is sufficient extra cost. I don't agree. I don't think we would have seen such a rabid response to the removal of LMB casting if people honestly considered loss of timing control to be about an even trade for it on balance.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

regarding your CWDT example: you ABSOLUTELY DO link multiple spells to CWDT. Most spellcasters link 3-4 unsupported "offensive" spells to cwdt. Nearly every one of my builds has at least two cwdt setups, one for defense and one for offense.

Ex: CWDT + frostbomb/wave + purifying flame + curse/third skill.

Okay, two things. First of all, I didn't say "multiple", I said "five". You're arguing against a position that wasn't taken, it's a waste of your time and mine.

Second, when I said "offensive" I meant "damaging, for the purpose of damage". Like Fireball or Ice Spear. I apologise for the ambiguity, but to be clear: I was not talking about casting for utility/curses, that of course is entirely normal.

The point is that the game lets you hook up CWDT + Fireball + Ice Spear + Spark + Bladefall + Essence Drain. That functions; they will all cast; the gem will do that. I'm not saying it's good strategically, I'm just saying it's good that it works. So when you're here saying "what you're suggesting would only be beneficial for a single warcry" - yes, I agree (unless there's some case where people want to rotate their warcries, or if you can reduce the cooldown a lot, etc). I just don't consider that a problem. It's fine for not all gem combinations to be useful.