Macro/Books/Pages.

[Krashport]

I would like to suggest and ask would it be possible in adding more lines to macros, Final Fantasy XI has changed in some ways, That the macro lines are kinda short and having 12+ lines per macro would help out. But if the client can handle more lines per macro that would help out also.

Sample Fig: 12 line Macro. I'm to lazy and not adding anymore lines.... You can imagine more lines in Sample Fig if you want to.:p



Here are some links about macro's ideas, some are the same and others are similar. There is a lot of threads about macro's out there.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/686-What-Everybody-Wants-Shorter-Simpler-Macros.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/14901-Macro-Lines-and-You.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/4102-Macro-lines
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/18920-Macro-suggestion
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/11844-macros-can-we-get-more-lines-lpease
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/6038-Macros
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/20267-Macro-stagnation-insight-and-suggestion.

[Daniel_Hatcher]

They already said no.

[Andreja]

There's a way to get what you want with the pc version.

[Ladyofdragons]

I agree with the OP, having the luxury of being able to do this would help tremendously. I too find myself making and extra one or two macro's just to have the ability to switch out a few items that won't fit into the main macro. Also with all the new gear and accessories Square Enix has added, there is many different options one could make concerning gear sets.

[Daniel_Hatcher]

I'm assuming, but sure enough You're referring to "Windower" which is not the official Playonline viewer and is not endorsed or affiliated by Square Enix. Therefore you're recommendation is considered a 3rd party tool which could get you banned, also it is considered cheating because you're not able to do it in the first place.



That doesn't mean they can't change their beautiful minds. I mean come on how can someone not see this being a real help to the game.

Technically you are via multiple macro's, just saying!


Seeing however as they've said this repeatedly the likelihood they'd change it is slim to none.

[Arcon]

I'm assuming, but sure enough You're referring to "Windower" which is not the official Playonline viewer and is not endorsed or affiliated by Square Enix. Therefore you're recommendation is considered a 3rd party tool which could get you banned, also it is considered cheating because you're not able to do it in the first place.

Not this again.



That doesn't mean they can't change their beautiful minds. I mean come on how can someone not see this being a real help to the game.

If they do, they will do so without us spamming them over with the same thread over and over again.

[cidbahamut]

Ah, good old SE. Unable to make basic quality-of-life changes since 2003.

[Krashport]

Ah, good old SE. Unable to make basic quality-of-life changes since 2003.

I know right, I really don't see a problem for them not to implement this, and with Lv.99 raise, all jobs and sub jobs having way more abilities, gears, accessories... the list goes on. the old school Macro's lines aren't cutting it anymore.

[Andreja]

I'm assuming, but sure enough You're referring to "Windower" which is not the official Playonline viewer and is not endorsed or affiliated by Square Enix. Therefore you're recommendation is considered a 3rd party tool which could get you banned, also it is considered cheating because you're not able to do it in the first place.

If SE did a better job with the official client, the majority of players wouldn't be using it. It's SE's fault for not improving the official client with much needed tools that a majority of other MMOs, including Everquest, have already. If they did start bans on that stuff, the majority of players would be banned, that's how good windower is.

[Kaisha]

Probably a better odds of making them implement 'gear sets' to macro in than getting them to rework the macro system to give us halved macros per book, but doubled lines in each (which would only get us 12, but more than enough for most purposes anyway).

[Babekeke]

Reason why I didn't add Main,Sub,Range or Ammo cause those are usually manually changed and I didn't see a reason to add them.

Main: unless you're a mage job,
Sub: unless you're a mage job,
Ranged: Unless you're a Bard
Ammo: Unless you're a Thief, Ranger, Corsair, possibly Beastmaster or Puppetmaster.

Did I miss any?

On Bard I'll often change all apart from the ammo in a single macro.

Either way, until SE bother to fix this (which they won't) I'll stick with risking getting banned, tyvm.

[RAIST]

I forget the exact reasoning for not adding more lines, but it was most likely due to a resource issue with the PS2 hardware or base code. So long as they are intent on keeping things inline across all platforms for features like this, don't expect it to be changed until they make some major changes to release more resources.

[Tsukino_Kaji]

On Bard I'll often change all apart from the ammo in a single macro.Question. Why dose your brd have something in it's ammo slot?

[Arcon]

Technically this is not the same thread, its a new thread that might be similar to another thread which each thread do not have all the same people posting in them leaving us to new posters and comments and thoughts. Therefore it give us more info on the topic at hand which is very helpful.

Keep telling yourself that. It's the same thread, asking for the same things, and everything wanted here has been discussed and said before. Not that I disagree with any of it, I'd love for them to do it, but the people translating this to the people on the deciding end probably won't do that with every repost. The reps already mentioned they have threads for all ideas and are awaiting replies from the dev team on each one, in which case they'll bump our old threads with updated information (as they have been doing for a year now). Hence, this thread is pointless, which is all other people wanted to point out. But whatever, if you feel like discussing it, go ahead.


Question. Why dose your brd have something in it's ammo slot?

He said it didn't, if I understood him correctly.

[Krashport]

which is all other people wanted to point out. But whatever, if you feel like discussing it, go ahead

Naw looks to me that it's just you solo "Trying" to speak for everyone else. If you weren't so gungho about this a "Same thread", You wouldn't have to explain yourself which you are doing repeatably.
Not that I disagree with any of it, I'd love for them to do it,


Keep telling yourself that. It's the same thread, asking for the same things, and everything wanted here has been discussed and said before. Not that I disagree with any of it, I'd love for them to do it, but the people translating this to the people on the deciding end probably won't do that with every repost. The reps already mentioned they have threads for all ideas and are awaiting replies from the dev team on each one, in which case they'll bump our old threads with updated information (as they have been doing for a year now). Hence, this thread is pointless, which is all other people wanted to point out. But whatever, if you feel like discussing it, go ahead.

One way or another there is a lot of threads that are the same and similar. By calling this thread pointless you've called everyone that took their time and effect in posting in it thus far pointless... rude much? I've read a lot of those old threads and most of them talked about adding a new system to the previous macro's system, where this one just adds lines to be able to input more changes to said gear. Why not try not being a forum nazi? and add to the conversation... maybe you'll have something more intelligent to say.

[Yarly]

You don't need so many macro lines because you shouldn't be changing gear so much.

[Jamesy]

or how about SE adds about 4 lines to macros and a macro link command.

so you can have to macros activated by one macro through a command log.

ex /activate macro set 1 "Line 1 Alt 4"

[Nala]

you know intelligent use of the /macro set x commands allow you to condense macro execution a bit.

[Arcon]

Naw looks to me that it's just you solo "Trying" to speak for everyone else. If you weren't so gungho about this a "Same thread", You wouldn't have to explain yourself which you are doing repeatably.

I hate leaving the last word to someone who's wrong, it gives the impression that I can't defend myself against them, which is untrue. I'm aware that that's a childish attitude and leads to several unnecessary arguments, but it's part of my OCD and I can't just ignore it.


One way or another there is a lot of threads that are the same and similar. By calling this thread pointless you've called everyone that took their time and effect in posting in it thus far pointless... rude much?

No, I called every repost except the first pointless. And it's not an insult to anyone, it's merely a fact, which is uncomfortable to some people (apparently you too, as you're not taking it well). I'm just stating that all their threads won't reach the devs, as it's already been posted and I doubt the reps are big into repeating themselves over and over, mainly because they already told us how it works. By pointing out that there's been other threads, it would make sense to find those and keep discussing things in there, to keep all the information in one thread and not scattered around ten different ones where no one could find relevant information if they're looking for it.


I've read a lot of those old threads and most of them talked about adding a new system to the previous macro's system, where this one just adds lines to be able to input more changes to said gear. Why not try not being a forum nazi? and add to the conversation... maybe you'll have something more intelligent to say.

I said plenty of intelligent things about it supporting this very cause in other threads. Repeating myself in here would do no good to anyone. You're just taking it personally that I told you that there's been threads about this very issue before, which you shouldn't have, because it wasn't.

And while there's many threads suggesting slightly different macro/gear things, some (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/20267-Macro-stagnation-insight-and-suggestion.) are (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/6038-Macros) actually (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/11844-macros-can-we-get-more-lines-lpease) exactly (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/14901-Macro-Lines-and-You.) the (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/4102-Macro-lines) same (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/18920-Macro-suggestion) (none of which insist that 12 lines is somehow the sweet spot, though, which I admit I also find odd). There's also a reason for why most threads are suggesting something else, by the way, and it's precisely because people suspect that SE are either not gonna change it (may be related to PS2 issues, as macros are also stored in active memory, which we all know is painfully small on the PS2), or take too long mulling it over, so they come up with alternate solutions to the same problem. Some of which are pretty excellent, and which I'd prefer over more macro lines. Regardless, I support all of these threads fully and I liked every one of them, including yours.

[RAIST]

hehe.. nice URL linking there Arcon.

Since this issue is getting stirred up yet again, maybe we should work in the /equipset (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/686-What-Everybody-Wants-Shorter-Simpler-Macros) idea into the mix again. I liked that idea. Should be completely doable on the consoles, as the sets data could be stored server-side and not impact console RAM--could also be a solution for those not using the app-that-shall-not-be-named.

[Krashport]

I hate leaving the last word to someone who's wrong, it gives the impression that I can't defend myself against them, which is untrue. I'm aware that that's a childish attitude and leads to several unnecessary arguments, but it's part of my OCD and I can't just ignore it. Thanks for clearing that up and explaining that you're Code of conduct is based on a childish attitude.^^


I said plenty of intelligent things about it supporting this very cause in other threads. Repeating myself in here would do no good to anyone. You're just taking it personally that I told you that there's been threads about this very issue before, which you shouldn't have, because it wasn't. I agree, with in some of those threads you have quite afew things to enlighten the subject. Where now you don't have (you just said it yourself); nothing else to add. then why are you within this thread, one can't help to wonder. Ok all those mutiple thread you have shown are same and similar in many ways, if this thread is I'm sure a rep will take care of it.


And while there's many threads suggesting slightly different macro/gear things, some (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/20267-Macro-stagnation-insight-and-suggestion.) are (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/6038-Macros) actually (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/11844-macros-can-we-get-more-lines-lpease) exactly (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/14901-Macro-Lines-and-You.) the (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/4102-Macro-lines) same (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/18920-Macro-suggestion) (none of which insist that 12 lines is somehow the sweet spot, though, which I admit I also find odd). Thanks for taking all that time surfing through the forums and linking all those useful links about concerning Macros saves me the trouble. About your feelings on the sweet number (12), Gear swaps are considered Head, Body, Hands, Legs, Feet, Waist, Back, Neck, Ear1/2, Ring1/2 for the most part reason why I chose the number (12). Question at Arcon, Why do you feel it's odd? Do you think their should be more or less lines within a macro?


There's also a reason for why most threads are suggesting something else, by the way, and it's precisely because people suspect that SE are either not gonna change it (may be related to PS2 issues, as macros are also stored in active memory, which we all know is painfully small on the PS2), or take too long mulling it over, so they come up with alternate solutions to the same problem. Some of which are pretty excellent, and which I'd prefer over more macro lines. Regardless, I support all of these threads fully and I liked every one of them, including yours. See that's the thing out of all those threads you shared with us most of them are assumptions about Playstation 2 limitations. but where is the facts I checked everywhere and can not find anything not even a rep said anything about this, not even in those Threads you shared with us where is the Facts. If you have a link enlighten us.

[Arcon]

[..] then why are you within this thread, one can't help to wonder.

Why are you here? What constructive thoughts did you have to add, except for the OP which was redundant? Do you think you own the thread because you posted the OP?


About your feelings on the sweet number (12), Gear swaps are considered Head, Body, Hands, Legs, Feet, Waist, Back, Neck, Ear1/2, Ring1/2 for the most part reason why I chose the number (12). Question at Arcon, Why do you feel it's odd? Do you think their should be more or less lines within a macro?

Unless they add some version of the previously mentioned /equipset command, or some form of conditional gear engine like SpellCast, I say more. 12 is an arbitrary number you chose, which leaves no room for ammo changes (which you should swap too, as it will not wipe your TP), and staves/instruments for mages and bards. Not to mention lack of a macro line for the actual comment, which you'd have to waste an entire macro for just to activate it, which you could otherwise place on one line. Also it would prevent putting other commands on there, like switching back to another macro set/book.


See that's the thing out of all those threads you shared with us most of them are assumptions about Playstation 2 limitations. but where is the facts I checked everywhere and can not find anything not even a rep said anything about this, not even in those Threads you shared with us where is the Facts. If you have a link enlighten us.

I don't, nor did I ever state that that was the case. I just said that it "may" be related to it, as we all know that the PS2 is short on memory. And to our current knowledge that is a fact, as it was stated by several community reps and SE staff, in response to inventory limitations, blinking issues and auto-translate options. So the theory is that it may extend to macro storage as well.

Here's the thing, why don't they add more lines? People have theories. Either SE can't, and the only way that would apply is if it was limited by the PS2, as neither the PC nor the Xbox impose any restrictions that the PS2 can handle otherwise. If that's the case, our suggestions are fruitless, because there's nothing to be done about this. That's why some people move on to suggesting other things that would bypass these issues.

The second option would be they don't want to. Sadly, this is a real option, as SE has shown unreasonable paranoia about these things in plenty of other cases. They're so afraid that people will abuse things that aren't worth abusing, that they figure they need to limit the capabilities of their loyal customers to prevent it. If that's the case, all our petitions and suggestions are futile anyway.

However, if neither of those things apply, why limit it to 12? Why not do 20? That should be enough for all gear changes and some miscellaneous stuff (like activating the spell/ability itself and changing back to another set). Why not 32? Do you think someone will abuse it to shout in 32 lines? And hell, even if someone would, there's ways to prevent that, for example just allow only x shout-lines out of the 32. Why do you feel 12 is appropriate? Why are you so scared of an upper limit? It almost reminds me of SE's own paranoia, which I also never figured out.

12 simply doesn't feel logical to me. The 6 we have now are arbitrary. 12 is 2x arbitrary, picked by you because that's what you deemed necessary for efficient gearswapping. However, that's only the case for you and how you play. Others have their macros laid out differently and wanna swap more gear. Some wanna combine macros into one, with a wait command. There's plenty of reasons why 12 would be bad as well. It would only suck half as much as 6, but it would still suck. Unless they gave us an SE approved version of SpellCast, in which case I wouldn't care if they reduced the lines to 2.

[RAIST]

There was some discussion about this back when they added the <macro> command just over a year ago. Unfortunately, having trouble searching for posts that old--search seems to want to cut off arbitrarily before a certain time frame or something, and Google returns a bunch of crap when I try. However, I did find this:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/9854-High-res-font-yay-Now-how-about-the-title-screen?p=227224&viewfull=1#post227224

Originally Posted by Hiromichi_Tanaka

We’ve implemented the new macro palette onto the dev. server!



You can now enter up to 8 characters into the macro title box. We were unable to increase the max number of characters you can input in the macro editing menu. However, the title you input will be fully displayed now. If you are using a 1024x resolution or higher with the Windows version or using the HD mode for Xbox 360, these changes to the macro palette will be automatically switch over. If you are using a lower resolution, SD mode, or a PlayStation 2, the size of the macro palette will remain the original size. We weren’t able to launch this onto the Test Server this week, but we will be implementing it sometime next week. I hope you’re all looking forward to it!

Oh…did you notice the chat widget?
The developers have secretly been working on a new chat widget for Windows and Xbox 360 that will allow you to adjust the number of lines and width of the box. This will also be implemented onto the test server next week, so please try it out!

Note the sentence that I bolded in the quote. This implies that there is in fact an issue in coding or other resources that make expansion of the macro entry system difficult. I'm wanting to say there was some mention of a concern over the console GUI design--may have been a reference to a real estate issue on the PS2, not sure. But there was something brought up about issues with expanding macros for the PS2. Which, as we all know, they have traditionally been reluctant to make major changes to the interface that cannot also be done on the PS2, in the interest of keeping the player experience balanced.

[Thanotos]

I just want to say that swapping gear in itself during combat is a retarded concept, and I would be happy to see it removed period. Being able to use and benefit from every piece of armor in the game equipable by my class, in a span of seconds while engaged to an enemy is just ridiculous.

[Tsukino_Kaji]

I still sand by not adding more lines as it would only lead to the past botting issues. Instead, add a toggle switch that changes the individual macro to a 12 line gear only one.

[Krashport]

Why are you here? What constructive thoughts did you have to add, except for the OP which was redundant? Do you think you own the thread because you posted the OP? Think your Code of conduct is acting up again. ^^


Unless they add some version of the previously mentioned /equipset command, or some form of conditional gear engine like SpellCast, I say more. 12 is an arbitrary number you chose, which leaves no room for ammo changes (which you should swap too, as it will not wipe your TP)








and staves/instruments for mages and bards. Not to mention lack of a macro line for the actual comment, which you'd have to waste an entire macro for just to activate it, which you could otherwise place on one line. Also it would prevent putting other commands on there, like switching back to another macro set/book.











However, if neither of those things apply, why limit it to 12? Why not do 20? That should be enough for all gear changes and some miscellaneous stuff (like activating the spell/ability itself and changing back to another set). Why not 32? Do you think someone will abuse it to shout in 32 lines? And hell, even if someone would, there's ways to prevent that, for example just allow only x shout-lines out of the 32. Why do you feel 12 is appropriate? Why are you so scared of an upper limit? It almost reminds me of SE's own paranoia, which I also never figured out.
Why would you need that many lines please tell us, how would you work 20-32 lines of usage!!? The only Idea I could fathom is that you want one macro to do it all. Haste gear>Weapon gear>Weapon skill>repeat "go afk".



12 simply doesn't feel logical to me. The 6 we have now are arbitrary. 12 is 2x arbitrary, picked by you because that's what you deemed necessary for efficient gearswapping. However, that's only the case for you and how you play. Others have their macros laid out differently and wanna swap more gear. Some wanna combine macros into one, with a wait command. There's plenty of reasons why 12 would be bad as well. It would only suck half as much as 6, but it would still suck. Code of conduct. ^^

[cidbahamut]

Relevant:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/your.png

[Krashport]

I just want to say that swapping gear in itself during combat is a retarded concept, and I would be happy to see it removed period. Being able to use and benefit from every piece of armor in the game equipable by my class, in a span of seconds while engaged to an enemy is just ridiculous.

Seeing that swapping gear, gear in general is a big part of Final Fantasy XI. Why do you feel it's ridiculous and it should be stopped?

[Zumi]

They said no a long time ago because of PS2 ram limitations, doesn't look like they changed their stance on it.


I still sand by not adding more lines as it would only lead to the past botting issues. Instead, add a toggle switch that changes the individual macro to a 12 line gear only one.

If people are botting on FFXI they aren't going to use the in game macro system to do it obviously.

[Krashport]

They said no a long time ago because of PS2 ram limitations, doesn't look like they changed their stance on it.
Zumi, How would you feel if Square Enix lowered the number of Books to (10) and pages to Macro's within said Book to (5) getting the consoles more RAM to add new lines if in fact it is a RAM issue?

[RAIST]

it doesn't necessarily always work out that way. Sometimes it is an issue of a bit mask--these are registered during boot up and used perpetually throughout your session to stream data. On a PC, memory is managed completely differently (it isn't streamed, everything is dumped to a location and monipulated as needed, like all textures sent to VRAM, on PS2 it is streamed over and over). Some registers are also preset in the firmware of the PS2 also. Point is, in the PS2 environment, some things can only go to a certain size per instance they are streamed. Reducing the size of the data in that stream doesn't automatically free up space to be used elsewhere--the size of the DWORD remains the same in the stream, it just would contain null data. To free up that resource, it requires a more fundamental cange in the code than just reducing the number of lines. The same can go for increasing the lines--you have restructure the stream by taking a reduction elsewhere on another placeholder and declaring the larger placeholder to secure room for the change.

[Krashport]

RAIST, Couldn't Square Enix Fix that Null to PS2 VRAM in an update?

Edit; I remember awhile back most PS2 users had to format in order to fix a problem if that is the case sh!t on the PS2 format 2.0!

[RAIST]

The PS2 streams data thorugh VU0/VU1 more or less on the fly. It doesn't store everything in VRAM/VM/Etc. like in a PC. In a PC, you can load all the data in one location (like in the VidCards memory), and offload all manipulation as seperate processes in parallel and/or series (like the GPU handles all physics, graphics manipulation, etc). PS2 is not designed to function in the same way, it's more serialized in most cases (often more due to shotty programming).

In simpler, terms, you can't always just change a variable and magically add lines to a list on the PS2. You often have to go into a much lower level of code and manipulate multiple resources by shrinking a resource elsewhere.(want to load a bigger bucket in the back of the truck to carry more water from point a to b, but you only have so much space in the back of the truck and can therefore only carry so much total material in one trip, so you have to replace another container with a smaller one and send less of another material to another location (or remove it from the shipment completely)--and you may have to rebuild each the containers from scratch and then rearrange your load to make the large container fit becasue it is no longer uniform size/shape and you have to find a way to fit this beast in a tight spot).

[Nala]

ctr 1 set 1
/macro set 2
/equip x5

ctr 1 set 2
/macro set 1
/equip x5

double tap control 1 10 pieces swapped continue to macro set 3 to make it 15

works really well, or just move onto pc.

[Krashport]

ctr 1 set 1
/macro set 2
/equip x5

ctr 1 set 2
/macro set 1
/equip x5

double tap control 1 10 pieces swapped continue to macro set 3 to make it 15

works really well, or just move onto pc. Just because members are talking about a console doesn't mean that's what they're using. in any case PC users have this same problem, unless you're referring to "Windower" I'll say again... It is not the official Playonline viewer and is not endorsed or affiliated by Square Enix. I really wish a rep would come in this thread, seeing how openly some members are recommending a 3rd party tool.

[RAIST]

they may be tired of the same old debate that's been going on since 2004 (that I'm aware of, possibly longer). They've commented on it, and already forwarded it to the powers that be for evaluation. Not much more they can say beyond that.

It's been requested, and submitted for review... over and over and over again for nearly 8 years now. Until the moderators are told something new to forward to us, we will not hear anything new on the matter.

[Krashport]

What I understand from Hiromichi_Tanaka post that they added more space to the Macro title where one can input more characters same with the lines, I didn't get they could not add anymore lines to a macro, I'm not saying that's what you read, but I can see people getting confused after all the main reason to this thread as well of all those other threads out there is to wonder why we could not have more lines within a macro and there is pretty much no facts or much facts that can be fond.



But yeah I do agree there is a issue in coding though in some way. seeing there is a Max of 368 characters 8 in the Macro title and 60 in 6 lines, that being said what if lowering the number to 30 in 12 lines question is could that solve this issue or maybe Square Enix just doesn't want this headache.

[Glamdring]

oh god, not another one of these threads... look up the term "ad nauseum", it applies perfectly to how often this subject has been asked and answered. And for future reference, please take note of the search box at the top right-hand corner above the 1st entry on every forum page-it really does work.

[cidbahamut]

Just because members are talking about a console doesn't mean that's what they're using. in any case PC users have this same problem, unless you're referring to "Windower" I'll say again... It is not the official Playonline viewer and is not endorsed or affiliated by Square Enix. I really wish a rep would come in this thread, seeing how openly some members are recommending a 3rd party tool.
You really need to get over yourself.

Windower is a reality. It exists because the playerbase got fed up with SE's nonsense and found a solution to the problem rather than endlessly petitioning a brick wall.

[Arcon]

Think you're Code of conduct is acting up again. ^^

On the contrary, I just repeated to you what you said to me, to point out to you how you were the one acting childish this time. I know very well when I'm being childish and immature and I have no problems at all to admit to it, but this wasn't one of those times. This was you being childish and me calling you out on it. You asked me why I'm in here, which is a pointless question because this is an official forum where every currently paying customer may express their opinion, so I directed the same question back at you.


Ranger & Corsair.
Range Attack Set.
[..]
you still have (10) open lines... you can only do two actions, you shouldn't* need anymore.

Ranger & Corsair.
Haste set and or Weapon skill Set.
[..]

Black Mage & and any other Mage Job.
Nuke/Curing Set.
[..]

you still have (7) open lines... you can only do five actions, you shouldn't need anymore.

Black Mage & and any other Mage Job. Refresh set and or Curing/Nuking Set.
[..]


Bolded your error in judgment, which is exactly what I was talking about. "You shouldn't need anymore" is just you imposing your ideas and your style of playing on others. You're not in any position to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't need. Just earlier Thanotos told you that gear swapping is wrong and shouldn't be a part of the game, which you immediately dismissed. It's the same thing. You're not comfortable with his judgment of what you should be allowed to do. Yet you feel you can judge others on the same matter?


Why would you need that many lines please tell us, how would you work 20-32 lines of usage!!? The only Idea I could fathom is that you want one macro to do it all. Haste gear>Weapon gear>Weapon skill>repeat "go afk".

I wouldn't, and I never said it was for me. Very few of my macros even exceed one line, so I don't care at all about how many in particular it is. All I'm saying is that 12 is a completely arbitrary number to other people. You picked it because it would fit your playstyle and now you seem hell bent on it being "just right", and keep listing weird and incomplete examples that I can't even make much sense of, although I admit it may be the alcohol, so I'll review it in the morning. It still doesn't change the fact that there's certain actions for which I want to change 15 pieces of gear, which is not possible with your suggested "solution".


Code of conduct. ^^

Nope, again not. That was a perfectly valid argument, and I have to admit I feel a little disheartened that you ignored it based on your perception of my attitude, which wouldn't, in any way, invalidate the argument itself, even if that perception was accurate. I've been feeling especially chipper today and I was never in the mood to behave immaturely at all. I'm simply telling you what your argument sounds like to other people. It sounds like you picked a number that just suits you, and you defending it and telling others that they change too much gear or shouldn't need anymore just makes you sound arrogant and fascist, placing your own opinion over other peoples'. Because in the end, that's all it is, your opinion. And while you're entitled to it just like everyone else, it doesn't make it special, right or even appropriate.

Now, I've explained to you why just 12 slots are unreasonable, and the only counter-argument you had was "you shouldn't need anymore", which is as wrong as needing anything in a game can be, as Thanotos' pointed out with his opinion that you shouldn't need any gear swaps at all. So your only counter-argument was your opinion of other peoples' playstyle.

You, however, never explained to me why 32 slots would be unreasonable. Your bolded reply seems to indicate that you're quite shocked at that suggestion, because you seem to have read into it that that I actually wanna change 32 pieces of gear with one press of a button or something, which isn't the case. But even if it was, why is that bad? Would it hurt you if I had 32 macro lines? Or even if you had it? Why is it excessive? Of course we're still under the assumption that PS2 memory isn't a limitation for this, because otherwise all our arguments would be pointless, but if we disregard that restriction, why is it excessive? Do you know how little memory storing every single macro takes? Around 140 KB to have one entire macro book loaded. That's less than 0.05% of my FFXI's average memory consumption (running on a PC). So from a technical standpoint it's obviously not excessive. From a gameplay standpoint? You can't change more than 16 pieces at a time anyway, and if you wanted to, for whatever reason, why shouldn't you be able to do so?

I'm not saying anyone at all needs it. I'm just saying there's also no argument against it. There is, however, an argument against your 12. Simply because it's not enough for some people.

Also, no one here is advocating Windower. If we were, we wouldn't be pushing for these suggestions on the official forums, because they can all be easily alleviated by certain tools that are readily available. We're still here, which is a sign that we actually want the game to develop outside of Windower. But it wouldn't hurt anyone if SE took some hints from certain third party utilities, as they're there for a reason: because they're tremendously useful. Personally I'd love if SE took some of Windower's ideas and made it completely obsolete and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this belief.


oh god, not another one of these threads... look up the term "ad nauseum", it applies perfectly to how often this subject has been asked and answered.

Just asked, actually. To my knowledge it hasn't been officially answered yet.

[Krashport]

You really need to get over yourself.
In what way do you mean... do I intimidate you?


Windower is a reality. It exists because the playerbase got fed up with SE's nonsense and found a solution to the problem rather than endlessly petitioning a brick wall. So you're fine with using "Windower" to fix this problem because Square Enix chooses not to address it?

[cidbahamut]

In what way do you mean... do I intimidate you?
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1492qxvl91qbpsgg.png



So you're fine with using "Windower" to fix this problem because Square Enix chooses not to address it?

Yes. Windower is a superior fix to whatever SE could come up with. That's the unfortunate reality of our situation. You can either accept that, or wail about it to no effect.

[Zumi]

Zumi, How would you feel if Square Enix lowered the number of Books to (10) and pages to Macro's within said Book to (5) getting the consoles more RAM to add new lines if in fact it is a RAM issue?




PS2 is so ancient the way it works is it only holds 1 set of ctrl and alt macros in the ram at once. If you switch to another line of macros, like go from 1-2 there is a noticeable pause and it loads the macro data into the ram from the hard drive. You can see the orange hd light lite up when you switch between rows and the game stutter a little bit.

So reducing the number of books would do nothing.

Now SE could do this on PC and 360 if they wanted if they change their policies about the whole deal.

[Krashport]

On the contrary, I just repeated to you what you said to me, to point out to you how you were the one acting childish this time. I know very well when I'm being childish and immature and I have no problems at all to admit to it, but this wasn't one of those times. This was you being childish and me calling you out on it. You asked me why I'm in here, which is a pointless question because this is an official forum where every currently paying customer may express their opinion, so I directed the same question back at you.
V

I said plenty of intelligent things about it supporting this very cause in other threads.Repeating myself in here would do no good to anyone. You're just taking it personally that I told you that there's been threads about this very issue before, which you shouldn't have, because it wasn't.

If you don't want to repeat yourself and obvious you said it yourself and still repeating yourself, See bold. having nothing to add besides what you have said in other threads, Which in fact you are repeating yourself. that is the question that I have asked you.


Bolded your error in judgment, which is exactly what I was talking about. "You shouldn't need anymore" is just you imposing your ideas and your style of playing on others. You're not in any position to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't need. Just earlier Thanotos told you that gear swapping is wrong and shouldn't be a part of the game, which you immediately dismissed. It's the same thing. You're not comfortable with his judgment of what you should be allowed to do. Yet you feel you can judge others on the same matter?
V

I just want to say that swapping gear in itself during combat is a retarded concept, and I would be happy to see it removed period. Being able to use and benefit from every piece of armor in the game equipable by my class, in a span of seconds while engaged to an enemy is just ridiculous.
^

Seeing that swapping gear, gear in general is a big part of Final Fantasy XI. Why do you feel it's ridiculous and it should be stopped?
Gotta get your facts straight... It's call asking a question.


I wouldn't, and I never said it was for me. Very few of my macros even exceed one line, so I don't care at all about how many in particular it is. All I'm saying is that 12 is a completely arbitrary number to other people. You picked it because it would fit your playstyle and now you seem hell bent on it being "just right", and keep listing weird and incomplete examples that I can't even make much sense of, although I admit it may be the alcohol, so I'll review it in the morning. It still doesn't change the fact that there's certain actions for which I want to change 15 pieces of gear, which is not possible with your suggested "solution".

Bold: Everyone posts a bit with themselves in mind, but knowing it's on the forums other people opinions will come to surface.

Bold:You really have a habit speaking for others, But I know you're really speaking for yourself and using the words people, us, everyone, players as a handicap.

Bold:Wrong I picked it because it will convert Macro set 2-A into macro set 1-A giving more space to the macro bar and not having 2 or more Macro sets for a gear swap.


Nope, again not. That was a perfectly valid argument, and I have to admit I feel a little disheartened that you ignored it based on your perception of my attitude, which wouldn't, in any way, invalidate the argument itself, even if that perception was accurate. I've been feeling especially chipper today and I was never in the mood to behave immaturely at all. I'm simply telling you what your argument sounds like to other people. It sounds like you picked a number that just suits you, and you defending it and telling others that they change too much gear or shouldn't need anymore just makes you sound arrogant and fascist, placing your own opinion over other peoples'. Because in the end, that's all it is, your opinion. And while you're entitled to it just like everyone else, it doesn't make it special, right or even appropriate.
V

12 simply doesn't feel logical to me. The 6 we have now are arbitrary. 12 is 2x arbitrary, picked by you because that's what you deemed necessary for efficient gearswapping. However, that's only the case for you and how you play. Others have their macros laid out differently and wanna swap more gear. Some wanna combine macros into one, with a wait command. There's plenty of reasons why 12 would be bad as well. It would only suck half as much as 6, but it would still suck.

This is what you're calling a valid argument, everyone knows that all members playing the game plays it differently. so you're pointing out the obvious. But it's called "Gear swap" Sword,Shield,Bow,Ammo are considered weapons. but yeah I can see and understand how one can look at weapons being gear... and wanting to swap them out.


Now, I've explained to you why just 12 slots are unreasonable, and the only counter-argument you had was "you shouldn't need anymore", which is as wrong as needing anything in a game can be, as Thanotos' pointed out with his opinion that you shouldn't need any gear swaps at all. So your only counter-argument was your opinion of other peoples' playstyle.

Bold: You did? you just said awhile back in your post you only just use one macro line and seeing we have 6 atm how would 12 effect you? "Remember this is just a question"
Bold:Show me where I did this, I know that I asked Thanotos a question, which they never answered... :(


You, however, never explained to me why 32 slots would be unreasonable. Your bolded reply seems to indicate that you're quite shocked at that suggestion, because you seem to have read into it that that I actually wanna change 32 pieces of gear with one press of a button or something, which isn't the case. But even if it was, why is that bad? Would it hurt you if I had 32 macro lines? Or even if you had it? Why is it excessive? Of course we're still under the assumption that PS2 memory isn't a limitation for this, because otherwise all our arguments would be pointless, but if we disregard that restriction, why is it excessive? Do you know how little memory storing every single macro takes? Around 140 KB to have one entire macro book loaded. That's less than 0.05% of my FFXI's average memory consumption (running on a PC). So from a technical standpoint it's obviously not excessive. From a gameplay standpoint? You can't change more than 16 pieces at a time anyway, and if you wanted to, for whatever reason, why shouldn't you be able to do so?

Bold:I personally would like to see this happen see figs.

Macro having 6 Lines:

Macro having 12 Lines:



Bold:If you can come up with a need to have so many lines within a macro for said use. I might understand your question Edit: 20~30+.

[cidbahamut]

Gotta get you're facts straight... It's call asking a question.

I guess I was too subtle last time.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/your.png

[cidbahamut]

Monitoring the forums, spell checking threads or just the OP, cause you feel the need to find a word to point out is pathetic. you gotta get out more. Edit yeah.. I corrected myself. :p
You know what's sad?
Your inability to deal with the reality of a given situation.

You know what's even more depressing?
Your butchering of the written word. You're shaming grade school children everywhere.

Also: RL card, classy.

Also also: You only fixed the one error I specifically highlighted. You have learned nothing apparently.

[cidbahamut]

I've been sitting here for ten minutes trying to come up with an appropriate response, but nothing I can come up with is going to be of any worth. At this point you are simply determined to refuse to learn anything from this exchange.

[RAIST]

What I understand from Hiromichi_Tanaka post that they added more space to the Macro title where one can input more characters same with the lines, I didn't get they could not add anymore lines to a macro, I'm not saying that's what you read, but I can see people getting confused after all the main reason to this thread as well of all those other threads out there is to wonder why we could not have more lines within a macro and there is pretty much no facts or much facts that can be fond.



But yeah I do agree there is a issue in coding though in some way. seeing there is a Max of 368 characters 8 in the Macro title and 60 in 6 lines, that being said what if lowering the number to 30 in 12 lines question is could that solve this issue or maybe Square Enix just doesn't want this headache.

I don't know just how to explain it in a way you can understand it, but you can't just truncate the fields and then magically create more fields. It doesn't necessarily work that way. This is not a PC environment that is desinged with that flexibility in mind. It is a very restricted 32 MB memory space, that has not had any changes from Sony in ages.

In this particular instance, they likely could not display beyond the 8 characters on the name of the macro because those "objects" were defined a limit at the system level on how long they can be ages ago. To make them longer may require a deep retooling of the interface that simply may not a viable investment of resources for a game of this age. These fields are likely streamed as a fixed length field. If you put 1 character or 8 in there, it is probably still parsed in the format of an 8 character field. If the field were to overflow when parsed, it could get truncated to 8 characters when it is sent to the screen. By doing this, the same resources are used to display them whether it originated as 4 bytes, or 10...8 are read and sent to the screen each time. Simply going back and changing the length of the field we are allowed to put in there does not alter the resources reserved for displaying that item. A similar thing likely goes for each line in the macro. Probably a fixed length they are prepared to parse from each line, or it may be done as a single stream of text that is parsed out as a fixed-length per line, or some EOL character we don't see ourselve....who knows. That object is likely managed the same way whether it has all lines full or not. I doubt they recompile our macros every time we edit them--they are probably saved in a uniform format, so the system has a certain space and format reserved for that object so that it knows how to process them every time they are called and streamed. Think of the Windows Registry--how many values are saved as 0x00000001 to simply represent the state of on/off, True/False?

Adding additional objects in this already overtaxed memory space of the PS2 can involve a much deeper problem that can go all the way back to bootstrapping that has to be adddressed and balanced. To register placeholders to represent more lines, they need empty slots available for declaring those fields. If there are no slots available--than something has to be removed to make room. Which begs the question, what do you remove so you can inject more code?

This is something that is specific to the PS2 structure that SE is intent on using as the foundation for the core features of the interface. It's structures are more or less replicated to the other platforms, even though those platforms are technically capable of much more. The core design is sort of recycled and modded to run on these other systems. So long as SE is determined to keep all platforms in synch like this, if it is not worth investing in making the necessary changes for the PS2 console to support the changes then it likely won't be done.

[Arcon]

If you don't want to repeat yourself and obvious you said it yourself and still repeating yourself, See bold. having nothing to add besides what you have said in other threads, Which in fact you are repeating yourself. that is the question that I have asked you.

I wasn't repeating myself at all, I was repeating what you said. And the question was still pointless, which is why I didn't answer it then, but I did answer it in my previous post, so you should be happy now.



Seeing that swapping gear, gear in general is a big part of Final Fantasy XI. Why do you feel it's ridiculous and it should be stopped?

Gotta get your facts straight... It's call asking a question.

You are extremely selective when you're reading. Apparently you skipped over the first part, the part where you told him that gear swapping is a "big part of FFXI", which is again your opinion and not at all a question. It is also precisely what his problem is, so you just took the fact that he's dissatisfied with (gear swaps) and evaluated it according to your opinion. That is very far from a question. Just because you turned it back to him and asked his opinion again it doesn't change the fact that you assumed something completely contrary to his judgment and posed it as a fact, when it really isn't.


Bold: Everyone posts a bit with themselves in mind, but knowing it's on the forums other people opinions will come to surface.

I don't get what you mean by that. Of course what I said is my opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm not using more than two macro lines at most, so this wouldn't very much affect me. I just want SE to make a better game, because it deserves to be better.


Bold:You really have a habit speaking for others, But I know you're really speaking for yourself and using the words people, us, everyone, players as a handicap.

I am speaking for the people in this thread who disagreed with your judgment, and if you think there is no one, then why do you think there's 6 pages of everyone arguing against you? I never claimed to speak for everyone. I also never claimed that you're alone in your opinion. I'm just telling you there's another. If no one agreed with me they wouldn't have liked my posts. So yes, I am, as a matter of fact, representing more opinions than just my own. I'm not saying it to make myself sound superior, because, again, these are opinions. All of it. All of what you said and all of what I said. We can define who's reasonable or not, but we can't define who's right, because there is no right. But I not alone in thinking that 12 lines are not enough (apparently).


Bold:Wrong I picked it because it will convert my Macro set 2-A into macro set 1-A giving me more space to the macro bar and not having 2 or more Macro sets for a gear swap.

Added the bolded words, to make you understand my point. It would work for you, not for everyone. Hence, you picked it based on your playstyle, which is exactly what I said.


This is what you're calling a valid argument, everyone knows that all members playing the game plays it differently. so you're pointing out the obvious. But it's called "Gear swap" Sword,Shield,Bow,Ammo are considered weapons. but yeah I can see and understand how one can look at weapons being gear... and wanting to swap them out.

So you're arguing syntax now? Why is gear swap okay, but weapon swap isn't? And yes, weapons are, as a matter of fact, gear (and no, a shield is not considered a weapon, even though you can hit people in the face with it).


Bold: You did? you just said awhile back in your post you only just use one macro line and seeing we have 6 atm how would 12 effect you? "Remember this is just a question"

Just because it doesn't affect me personally, it doesn't mean it can't be unreasonable. I don't steal apples, that doesn't mean I think shooting every apple thief is reasonable just because it doesn't affect me. I gave you one very valid reason for why it's unreasonable, one you're still yet to refute: it doesn't work for everyone.


Bold:Show me where I did this, I know that I asked Thanotos a question, which they never answered... :(

I drew Thanotos' post as a parallel to show you how other people disagree with your judgment in the exact same way that you're disagreeing with mine. He thinks gear changing is unreasonable, you think changing more than 12 pieces is unreasonable. The latter part of that sentence was not directed at your response to him.


Bold:I personally would like to see this happen see figs.

Macro having 6 Lines:

Macro having 12 Lines:



And that still doesn't at all say why 32 slots are unreasaonable. I know what you want, you said it in your first post. But that doesn't help everyone. Other people would still be stuck on the same problem you're having now afterwards.


Bold:If you can come up with a need to have so many lines within a macro for said use. I might understand your question Edit: 20~30+.

Again, completely ignoring the question. I ask you, why is 32 lines bad? What speaks against it? I explicitely stated that I have no use for it and that I don't know what people can use it for. That's not the point. The point is, why not?

Here's a fictional scenario:
- Change 15 pieces of gear
- Cast a spell
- Change 15 pieces back

Happy? Now tell me why I shouldn't be able to do that if I wanted to.

[Babekeke]

I think it's about time that a moderator closed this thread.

[Tsukino_Kaji]

I think it's about time that a moderator closed this thread.Not before they respond to my idea, it's the only good one in here anyway. ^^

[Nala]

so just because im on pc my point was irrelevant? been on pc for a year now and was only recently that i transitioned away from that style of macroing, if your looking for longer macros that will get the job done.

it still wont solve the problem of the more intuitive gear control that other programs will give you but with using my example you can rapidly tap the same macro combo 3x in a row in less then .5 seconds swap out 15 pieces of gear, which in most cases you're only going to want to swap 12 if not less.

[Kaych]

I had been working with an idea that I never quite finished, but that might be worth mentioning in this thread.

If you would be able to "lock" your items before you left your mog house, you would recieve a bonus. It could be "Haste+20%", "Magic attack+ 20%", "Double attack+20%" etc. This would stop the need of swapping gear constantly and and free up macro space.

This suggestion probably should have gone in the "Gameplay-thread", but it seemed fitting to put it here ^_-

[cidbahamut]

I had been working with an idea that I never quite finished, but that might be worth mentioning in this thread.

If you would be able to "lock" your items before you left your mog house, you would recieve a bonus. It could be "Haste+20%", "Magic attack+ 20%", "Double attack+20%" etc. This would stop the need of swapping gear constantly and and free up macro space.


It really and truly would not.

[Krashport]

Thanks!




Your whole argument from the start is about "same thread" and "your opinion". Sounds to me you're against people voicing their opinion, and mad at the reps cause all that your enlighten on those threads You've posted in, really didn't get any feed back as to much facts and picking that this thread is the same and similar to others, sure I agree it's kinda the same trust me if a rep want to delete more this or anything they will in their own time. You know how many threads are the same and similar in ways.




There isn't 6 pages arguing against me, it's just you, your OCD and your opinion that has been stepping out of topic since you started posting in this thread, are you mad? As you can see most posters are suggesting to use windower. Which I disagree because we all know the reasons why. I am sure there are others within their own opinions that would like the Macro system adjusted. Mostly many in this thread agrees with me, That having (6) lines sucks cause having 2 macro sets or more for a gear swap and we would like it changed. It's seems you're shy voicing your own opinion and worrying about others, you should have just said from the start that you would rather have 32 lines. You're judging the whole side of a argument on the like Score!!.:D




That's a very interesting thought you have there. The main, sub, ammo you can do an action with and main, sub, ranged you'll reset TP, although head, body, hands, legs, feet, back, etc will not. Is one of the reasons I feel you shouldn't be able to. Hmm thinking about 32 lines, only would need 1 macro to do said action/gear swap/weapon skill/nuke etc, the mentality you have on this subject kinda gives me the impression "Go big or go home?" I do find both ways helping though.




Ask yourself can we gear swap now within FFXI, have we always been able to gear swap from release. How does it effect someone that does not gear swap. We will never know the answer to said question cause that falls into personal preference. The only thing we could do is assume. But asking questions and having your own opinions when others are involved using their opinions isn't wrong. Things that should matter is having an open mind. Also I'll let you in on something not everyone uses a keyboard nor only uses a controller to play FFXI.



I never said 32 slots "lines" are unreasonable, Yeah my main OP is for 12 Macro lines and you feel the need to have 32 Macro lines that's fine. Seeing that there is 20 macros within one book and 10 pages I feel 32 lines for each Macro is a bit much. One macro page would be 640 lines, Books 6400 lines, all Books 1,128,000 lines. no matter what Square Enix do if they do anything to the Macro system hopefully it's a blessing. The main reason why I chose 12 lines, I found it to be more reasonable. At the end of the day we will have our 6 lines and you'll have your;




That's the problem with all your posts, "You don't care" all you're looking for is an argument.

[Arcon]

There isn't 6 pages arguing against me, it's just you, your OCD and your opinion that has been stepping out of topic since you started posting in this thread, are you mad? As you can see most posters are suggesting to use windower. Which I disagree because we all know the reasons why.

Bolded the contradicting statements.


I am sure there are others within their own opinions that would like the Macro system adjusted. Mostly many in this thread agrees with me, That having (6) lines sucks cause having 2 macro sets or more for a gear swap and we would like it changed. It's seems you're shy voicing your own opinion and worrying about others, you should have just said from the start that you would rather have 32 lines. You're judging the whole side of a argument on the like Score!!.:D

No, I agree with you too. I agree that 12 is better than 6. I already told you that I liked your suggestion because of that. Why do you think I'm arguing against increasing the lines? I have no issues with your suggestion, I only have an issue with your insistance on being "just right" with 12 slots and everything more is stuff that we "don't need", because you're not in any position to decide that. If they went with this suggestion and increased it to 12 I'd be sincerely happy for the people who get more use out of it.

And I don't care for the like score at all (aside from hoping that the reps will pick up on it and promote those threads more enthusiastically to the devs if they get a higher score), I just used it to point out to you that I'm not just having the voices in my head who support me, but actual human beings who agree with some of my opinions (since you said that I don't and that I'm only talking for myself).

And again, I don't want 32 lines, I'm just not afraid to admit that I'd be happy about it. If they added it, it would certainly be a welcome change from my part. That doesn't mean I'll post a suggestion for it or that I pray for it every night. It would be of no use to me, but maybe it would to some people.


That's the problem with all your posts, "You don't care" all you're looking for is an argument.

Again with your selective reading. I do care, about many things. I care very deeply about starving children, homeless dogs, censorship politics, what dip to use for chicken nuggets and most of all about the difference between "affect" and "effect". I also care about improving FFXI, and this would be a step towards that. If you read again, you'll see I said "I don't care about how many [lines] in particular it is", which is very different from saying that I don't care. I'm not arguing with you over the number of lines, at first I argued with you because you felt offended that I called this thread a reposted idea (which you shouldn't have been, as that was simply a factual statement), right now I'm arguing with you because you're stubborn and you don't wanna bulge, you don't wanna admit that maybe your solution is not perfect. You kept bringing excuses and justifications for why 12 would work for you, which no one ever doubted in the first place, because if it wouldn't work for you, you wouldn't have suggested it.

Lastly, I'm never looking for an argument. As in, ever. I don't feel like arguing with you either, for that matter, but as I said before, I can't let your groundless accusations and misinterpretations stand without commenting, especially on a matter which I care about.

[Krashport]

I am speaking for the people in this thread who disagreed with your judgment, and if you think there is no one, then why do you think there's 6 pages of everyone arguing against you?
^

There isn't 6 pages arguing against me, it's just you, your OCD and your opinion that has been stepping out of topic since you started posting in this thread, are you mad? As you can see most posters are suggesting to use windower. Which I disagree because we all know the reasons why.


Bolded the contradicting statements.

People suggesting a 3rd party tool, and I chose not to use it, as others do. How is this arguing against me?, I have been talking about the official macro system, PS2>PC not 3rd party tools [6] lines this whole time. any number to the official system would help out. Yes and you agreed.

So no one is arguing against my OP, But arguing against I am not using "Windower" you're implying.

I'm going to take this moment and ask could a rep come in this thread please and tell us is "Windower", a 3rd party tool official or not. Can we use it cause there is a lot of members in this thread suggesting it to other members and openly using it.

[Glamdring]

Just asked, actually. To my knowledge it hasn't been officially answered yet.

it was answerred, one of the 1st we got actually. It was no. Something about client limitations on the max lines that could be produced. IIRC it was what launched the 300+ "stop supporting the PS2" threads--also answerred, as "no". I'd give you the link, but I'll be damned if I put myself through rereading all that drivel just to find it. Seem to recall it was a Dev post though, not Camate or Bayhonne.

[Glamdring]

I'm going to take this moment and ask could a rep come in this thread please and tell us is "Windower", a 3rd party tool official or not. Can we use it cause there is a lot of members in this thread suggesting it to other members and openly using it.

someone theorized that the reps were not responding to this question-which you're not the 1st to ask-because it's a "see no evil" attitude by SE. The theory was "yes, it IS a 3rd party tool and a technical violation of the ToS". Considering the prevalence of Windower users however they don't want to take "official" notice of it, because the resulting bans would kill too much of their revenue stream. As long as you don't blatantly discuss it in game, or use the tools in such a way that you are obviously playing with an unfair advantage they kind of let it slide.

Not to mention enforcement of it would be a bitch...

[Khajit]

Since when does SE care about getting less money? The salvage bans proved that they're willing to take a hit already. SE simply doesnt care about windower unless it starts auto fleehacking.

And to the people nagging about macros; Use your /macro commands and stop sucking already. I easily had my macro swaps done for all slots after SE release those commands on my ps2.

[Juilan]

SE said you weren't intended to use large macros...

[Glamdring]

SE absolutely cares about the bottom line, and yes, I do remember the salvage bans. The difference is that they had a TON more subscribers than they have today. They even had that giant pool of RMT accounts to fall back on, these days they are barely functional by comparrison. 14 was a flop, 11 is dated and WoW is beating them both, despite being rather dated itself.

The other big difference is that salvage banned characters tried to get back in because the playstyle itself wasn't affected. Take away windower and I doubt more than maybe 5% would bother even trying to come back, because it's integral to their style as players. Optomistic view no, but realistic I think so...