Macro/Books/Pages.

[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 are actually exactly the same (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 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.