Macro/Books/Pages.

[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?

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.

[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.

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.