New "Macro Strings", Macro's Reborn!

[Rambus]

both ideas would work, like to see what DEV replay is try get one of these in the game

[MarkovChain]

Idk if it's doable and I guess only SE can tell, but I think it would be better that the servers store your macro lines. They could add a menu where you set your lines and store them on the server. This would limit the lag (for example when combining sevral macro in a row).

[kingfury]

People should not be allowed to name thier macro strings, it'll take up too much space/information. They should instead of generic labels and macro string will have to be one command like /jobemote or /pcmd.
/macrosrting "String ##"
Otherwise another cool idea KF.

-------
Dually noted /nod, and great feedback to boot! Thanks Tsukino ^^/ but perhaps there could be a cap on both Single String and Group String titles per String category created. In my example I fabricated up to 20 Group Strings for the WAR example, but based on how powerful these would be, you could probably cap it even lower like 10 and still change the game forever. So maybe at the least, 10 Single String Titles, and 10 Group String Titles. If we could start modest and go up from there, it would be great. In any case I will definitely add this into the OP since your point is very true.

Just think about how much memory had to be blocked out for our 20 Macro Books which allows for naming (short 4-5 letter names, granted) about 200 macro titles per book. That's 4,000 customizable short macro titles. Not to mention whatever the character limit per macro line is. Hopefully with a limit placed on how many strings/group string titles, it would be a easy fit without bloating the system.
Great feedback as always! Thanks again ^^/

[kingfury]

Idk if it's doable and I guess only SE can tell, but I think it would be better that the servers store your macro lines. They could add a menu where you set your lines and store them on the server. This would limit the lag (for example when combining sevral macro in a row).

------
Thanks for the feedback ^^/
As with just about anything we suggest on these boards lol, but I'm hoping it wouldn't be anything too out of scope for the all mighty Dev Team. If anything, they would be able to find a similar solution like Seizak did a few post back.

I didn't say so in the OP, but I would definitely opt for the servers to house the data, yes. Thanks for adding that point, I will make sure to edit that into the OP /bow

[kingfury]

both ideas would work, like to see what DEV replay is try get one of these in the game

------
As always, I'm hoping their watchful (and most likely tired ><; ) eyes do the great service and honor of reading my post ^^/ These Community Reps have done an amazing job processing and responding to a a good number of our post here, so even if they didn't reply, I am confident that they indeed will read it at least ... but Community Rep replies are much cooler than nothing lol so /crosses fingers

[kingfury]

**EDITED ORIGINAL POST**
Thanks for all the feedback guys /salute

Additional Notes:
Per each String category, there would be a String and Group String Title limit of 20 (could be as low as 10 if necessary). 20 single String titles, and 20 Group String titles. To avoid any potential bloating of the system due to Titling the Strings.(Thanks to Tsukino_Kaji's feedback)
----
Saving the String data to the Servers would be an option for storing this information.(Thanks to MarkovChain's feedback)
----
Cool alternatives:
-Selzak's idea(Post 1),(Post 2)

[kingfury]

It's times like these where I wish I had a few programmer friends to lend their wisdom lol If there is in fact any seasoned programers swimming around on the boards that could shine some light on how complex this concept would be to realistically implement for FFXI, it would be awesome to hear from you ^^ / As well as some refinement/alternative options to achieve the end goal of enhancing macros to these heights.

I'm going to dig around online to find some similar systems to reference that may help communicate it better perhaps than I have in terms of the programming side of things. If I find anything, I'll make sure to post it.

[Selzak]

I don't know any details about the game's code, but I don't think anything about this would be particularly hard to do.

They'd have to add functionality to macros that would let them execute "Strings", and that might be hard depending a lot of different things. A "String" is basically a macro, and an actual "String" call acts kind of like an array. I don't know whether or not that would be hard to implement based on how the game accepts commands, but it is basically adding a second dimension to commands so it might be hard.

/do thing1
-game: ok. *does thing1*

/do thing2
-game: ok. *does thing2*

etc...

--------------------------------------

stuff1 =
{/do thing1
/do thing2}

stuff2 =
{/do thing3
/do thing4}

/do stuff1-2
-game: huh?


One question we have to ask is why we can't already use a macro within a macro, because that's essentially what this is only with the added complexity of calling multiple macros in one command.

[Atomic_Skull]

This is overly complex for the PS2 and almost certainly couldn't be implemented due to memory constraints on that platform.

And while we would all like for them to just drop PS2 support realistically that's not going to happen.

A solution that could be implemented on the PS2 would be to just add a command that jumps to the next macro pallet down and continues running lines similar to how /set jumps to a different macro pallet. The /set command would be used to return to the original macro pallet.

[kingfury]

I don't know any details about the game's code, but I don't think anything about this would be particularly hard to do.
They'd have to add functionality to macros that would let them execute "Strings", and that might be hard depending a lot of different things. A "String" is basically a macro, and an actual "String" call acts kind of like an array. I don't know whether or not that would be hard to implement based on how the game accepts commands, but it is basically adding a second dimension to commands so it might be hard.
/do thing1
-game: ok. *does thing1*
/do thing2
-game: ok. *does thing2*
etc...
--------------------------------------
stuff1 =
{/do thing1
/do thing2}
stuff2 =
{/do thing3
/do thing4}
/do stuff1-2
-game: huh?
One question we have to ask is why we can't already use a macro within a macro, because that's essentially what this is only with the added complexity of calling multiple macros in one command.

--------

Great example ^^/ Yet I would only hope that the problem is this simple!
Looking at your example:
stuff2 =
{/do thing3
/do thing4}

/do stuff1-2
-game: huh?

You're absolutely right based on FFXI's current syntax language. It's like asking an English speaking person to speak Spanish on the spot lol. SE would have to simply teach the system a bit of Spanish so to speak ^^. So the new bits of language would be:

/do stuff 1-3=
{/do thing1
/do thing2
/do thing3}
Where "-" = and/or until you complete
-game: Oooohh! Is that what that means? No problem /wave
-game: *does thing 1, 2, and 3*
-------
I would think the good thing about "programing" is being able to re-teach a system how to process new/old types of data as the need arises to do so. Just look at what they did with the new <wait #> command. Essentially they just re-taught the system how to process/read the syntax. In other words(based on the analogy I used above), the system understands both the English (/wait #) and the Spanish (<wait #>) languages of the same command.

Try not to think only of our current macros in regards to the possibilities of if our system could handle the proposed concept. FFXI houses this very same complex nestled functionality in just about every other menu option we use in-game. A good example would be navigating to the equipment menu to change your gear. In essence one could reach the equipment menu by using the menu to navigate to our weapons and then select the weapon we want to swap in:

Menu > Equipment > Main Weapon > Widowmaker = Finished

But, we have the functionality to bypass those steps with one string of syntax:

/equip Main "Widowmaker" = Finished

Picture this process for a moment the same as the Macro issue at hand:

line 1. do something > line 2. do something > line 3. do something > Finish

Where the Macro String would be the equivalent solution as the equipment syntax:

/macrostring <"Title 1"> = Finished

So, my point would be to just mirror some of the other functionality elsewhere to that of the Macro systems.