Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

Why does it matter whether macros are good or bad? If a disabled person struggles to play without them isn’t it then better that they do use macros? Still seems like a net gain to me lol. I highly doubt anyone is turning up to savage/ultimates with their oGCDs macro’d to their basic attack

Thank you for all your hard work Lilimo! It shows that you don't have to worry too much about missing dps if you need to macro due to disability reasons. It seems to only be an issue if you're doing ultimates and synced savages. Luckily the community is very understanding when I write in chat that I have problems, it's never been an issue in normal dungeons.

The macros I use are ones where you have to move your cursor and then press X for the ability (ex Earthly Star). This takes a long time on controller, as you have to move the target manually with analog stick, whereas, a macro will automatically put down the ability where you target. I use your technique of writing multiple lines for queue and it works flawlessly.

Ironically, using a macro this way actually shaves off seconds b/c it takes time to move cursor as a controller player.

That's such a wealth of information that you've given and will reread more in depth and watch your YT videos!

Decided to take a deeper dive. Turns out it's a real pain to get millisecond precision from chat messages, but the result I got was kind of a no-brainer in retrospect: macros execute one line per frame. This was consistent across every test at every fps breakpoint tested.

As a quick refresher, frametimes at different common fps breakpoints, plus the resulting 'macro queue' window with a micon, error off, 13 cast macro:
144fps = 6.94ms frametime = ~90ms window after ~14ms
120fps = 8.33~ms frametime = ~108ms window after ~17ms
60fps = 16.67~ms frametime = ~217ms window after ~33ms
30fps = 33.33~ms frametime = ~433ms window after ~67ms
15fps = 66.67~ms frametime = ~867ms window after ~133ms(!)

In my opinion, this isn't a good thing for macros at either end of the curve, and shatters some of the initial claims outright.

To get an acceptable "macro queue" time, you need 60fps or lower - but worse fps also means that multi-purpose macros with things like oGCDs get delayed, potentially for extreme lengths of time that can lead to undesirable clipping. With better fps, your "macro queue" time narrows - at 144fps your window is less than 1/5th the length of the standard queue's half-second - which can lead to oGCDs not on waits being brought up so close to the cast that they will likely fail on animation locks. Worse, because fps in this game isn't exactly predictable or reliably controllable, it's going to screw with muscle memory, too.

One factor I'm not able to test for at present is how this interfaces with ping. I have my theories from what I know and what I've heard, but... I prefer data.

Due to the amount of miscommunication and misunderstanding in the replies, I took that as feedback that my initial post wasn't doing a good enough job of tackling this issue. I have entirely retooled my initial post to better discuss this issue as well as discuss macros in a more holistic way, so I hope you'll give it a fresh go!

In addition, special thanks to ForteNightshade for pointing out that my initial video contained an error that I hadn't noticed; thanks to their feedback, I was able to remake the video without said error. The new video is now linked instead of the erroneous one.

Thanks to everyone who has engaged with this post so far. I wouldn't have been able to make this a better post without your help!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

what you actually meant was, look, I know macros are bad, however, I have found a way to make them slightly less bad for people that need them for one reason or another.

---

This is not at all what I mean, though. I take full responsibility for communicating my ideas poorly in my initial post. I rewrote the entire thing nearly from scratch today with the intent of correcting misunderstandings like this. I hope you'll give it a read if you have the chance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

Decided to take a deeper dive. Turns out it's a real pain to get millisecond precision from chat messages, but the result I got was kind of a no-brainer in retrospect: macros execute one line per frame. This was consistent across every test at every fps breakpoint tested.

As a quick refresher, frametimes at different common fps breakpoints, plus the resulting 'macro queue' window with a micon, error off, 13 cast macro:
144fps = 6.94ms frametime = ~90ms window after ~14ms
120fps = 8.33~ms frametime = ~108ms window after ~17ms
60fps = 16.67~ms frametime = ~217ms window after ~33ms
30fps = 33.33~ms frametime = ~433ms window after ~67ms
15fps = 66.67~ms frametime = ~867ms window after ~133ms(!)

In my opinion, this isn't a good thing for macros at either end of the curve, and shatters some of the initial claims outright.

To get an acceptable "macro queue" time, you need 60fps or lower - but worse fps also means that multi-purpose macros with things like oGCDs get delayed, potentially for extreme lengths of time that can lead to undesirable clipping. With better fps, your "macro queue" time narrows - at 144fps your window is less than 1/5th the length of the standard queue's half-second - which can lead to oGCDs not on waits being brought up so close to the cast that they will likely fail on animation locks. Worse, because fps in this game isn't exactly predictable or reliably controllable, it's going to screw with muscle memory, too.

One factor I'm not able to test for at present is how this interfaces with ping. I have my theories from what I know and what I've heard, but... I prefer data.

---

Thanks for taking the time to gather this great data! I've added that FPS affects the duration of the "macro queue" in my post, with credit to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rein_eon_Osborne

Their #rules section have a minutiae that specifically encourages theorycrafting & "challenging the meta" from its members.

Go try your luck.

---

Now that I've finished fine-tuning the original post to be more user-friendly, I've got the bandwidth to give this a try. I went to the Balance Discord and was able to find the section you cited above, but I didn't see anything in there about who to contact or where to propose these challenges. Any guidance would be appreciated, especially because I am 90% unfamiliar with how Discord works so even basic navigation is something I'm still getting accustomed to!

60% of my abilities are macro'ed..
Never had issues whatsoever..
But again i only macro heals abilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Connor

Why does it matter whether macros are good or bad? If a disabled person struggles to play without them isn’t it then better that they do use macros? Still seems like a net gain to me lol. I highly doubt anyone is turning up to savage/ultimates with their oGCDs macro’d to their basic attack

---

It matters because the initial premise wasn't that macros can work for people with disabilities, nobody is disputing that, do whatever you need to do to play the game comfortably.
The claim was that macros are not actually worse than just pressing the ability itself which has been proven false.

There are certain exceptions to this, Sprint for example has no skill-queueing so making a macro for it is actually an improvement as it reduces the likelyhood of your button press simply ghosting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurdity

The claim was that macros are not actually worse than just pressing the ability itself which has been proven false.

---

By chance have you had a chance to read my drastically re-worked initial post? I think if you read that you'll see that macro use isn't innately better or worse than just pressing the ability, but rather that there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

But one thing I wanted to make clear, and have provided evidence of, is that macros do not innately result in reduced casts/actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

Now that I've finished fine-tuning the original post to be more user-friendly, I've got the bandwidth to give this a try. I went to the Balance Discord and was able to find the section you cited above, but I didn't see anything in there about who to contact or where to propose these challenges. Any guidance would be appreciated, especially because I am 90% unfamiliar with how Discord works so even basic navigation is something I'm still getting accustomed to!

---

If I were you, I'd DM one of the moderator or those in the mentor roles & start from there, or use the #questions_general.

Wasn't it also due to server latency that macros were a basic nono. Like you have to take into account your connection speed and the live servers latency itself.

There are days where the instanced server is a mess so the macros probably would be a huge hindrance.

Also, if you that lazy that you wanna macro your job...prob best switch to braindead dancer. Less to memorize and easier to use

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenblade1979

Wasn't it also due to server latency that macros were a basic nono. Like you have to take into account your connection speed and the live servers latency itself.

There are days where the instanced server is a mess so the macros probably would be a huge hindrance.

Also, if you that lazy that you wanna macro your job...prob best switch to braindead dancer. Less to memorize and easier to use

---

Out of curiosity, did you happen to read any of the posts discussing why some people would want to use macros? You know, like physical disabilities? It's not necessarily a skill issue, it could possibly reduce workload/stress on their joints (for example).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

Decided to take a deeper dive. Turns out it's a real pain to get millisecond precision from chat messages, but the result I got was kind of a no-brainer in retrospect: macros execute one line per frame. This was consistent across every test at every fps breakpoint tested.

As a quick refresher, frametimes at different common fps breakpoints, plus the resulting 'macro queue' window with a micon, error off, 13 cast macro:
144fps = 6.94ms frametime = ~90ms window after ~14ms
120fps = 8.33~ms frametime = ~108ms window after ~17ms
60fps = 16.67~ms frametime = ~217ms window after ~33ms
30fps = 33.33~ms frametime = ~433ms window after ~67ms
15fps = 66.67~ms frametime = ~867ms window after ~133ms(!)

---

Did you happen to test whether FPS affects the queue window for non-macro actions? My assumption would be that normal actions will not be affected by FPS, but I'd rather have data if anyone can conjure it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

This is not at all what I mean, though. I take full responsibility for communicating my ideas poorly in my initial post. I rewrote the entire thing nearly from scratch today with the intent of correcting misunderstandings like this. I hope you'll give it a read if you have the chance!

---

You only listed benefits, not drawbacks to each.

Testing the queuing is going to take a lot more effort than just timing a macro (as you need to be able to time when you are able to use the next action compared to when you queue it up), however, it is likely to be a time based thing as opposed to a frame based thing.

I also still do not get why you are trying to push this? Yes, they help people who might have a hard time, however, it needs to be stated that you do lose out on the flexibility afforded by the actions as opposed to having them macro'd.

I've said it once and I will say it again. you have been promoting this the wrong way. You should never promote this unless someone has a genuine need for it.

Also, you comment about macros being 'work' and people don't want to put in the time and effort is disingenuous. If macros were deemed effective, all someone would have to do is copy and paste one, or someone would make a website that can do it for you (similar to crafting websites that can automate crafting recipes), so there wouldn't be any extra work as the site would be widely known.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

You only listed benefits, not drawbacks to each.

---

I listed them both. The benefits of macros are the cons of normal actions, and the benefits of normal actions are the cons of macros. Each has strengths the other lacks, each has disadvantages the other lacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

I also still do not get why you are trying to push this? Yes, they help people who might have a hard time, however, it needs to be stated that you do lose out on the flexibility afforded by the actions as opposed to having them macro'd.

---

Two reasons:

First, I dislike misinformation. If someone doesn't like macros and doesn't want to use them, that's fine. But the world is a better place if they make an informed decision rather than a misinformed decision. I genuinely hope this isn't a controversial statement.

Second, I think it's a misrepresentation to say that macros help people who "have a hard time", because normal actions also help people who "have a hard time". If you're using macros but you have a hard time pressing the button in the proper window, normal actions can help with that. But if you don't have trouble pushing buttons at the right time, you'll only benefit from taking advantage of the additional functionality macros provide. As I've said before and demonstrated in my post, macros have benefits that normal actions don't, and normal actions have benefits that macros don't. By being transparent about both, people can make informed decisions for themselves, and that rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Also, you comment about macros being 'work' and people don't want to put in the time and effort is disingenuous.

---

FF14 is a game that many people play for leisure. Wanting to just play your game and not do extra work is perfectly valid. I avoid Island Sanctuary because I don't want to manage spreadsheets, and in that same vein it's perfectly reasonable to avoid macros because you don't want to test and debug code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

If macros were deemed effective, all someone would have to do is copy and paste one, or someone would make a website that can do it for you (similar to crafting websites that can automate crafting recipes), so there wouldn't be any extra work as the site would be widely known.

---

Part of why there's not a site like that is the misinformation I'm pushing back against; who is going to invest in macros or seek them out when trusted sources are saying "Why you shouldn't macro your GCDs, Macroing GCDs adds up to lost casts overtime, significantly harming your potential"?

In addition, a site like that wouldn't be able to provide macros "without any extra work" for two reasons:

First, as Sindele pointed out, the rate at which macro lines are executed is determined by framerate. So depending on each individual player's setup, the precise implementation of a macro will need to vary.

Second, people have different preferences, and when you're making macros this really comes out. For example, in most cases I tend to like about a 6-frame window to press my GCD's, which means I can structure my macros to perform oGCD's on frame 7, which gives them a bit more of a prompt feel. But someone else might prefer a larger window to press their GCD's, and their macro would need to be structured differently to suit their preferences.

Coincidentally, before I read your commend I realized that these aspects weren't adequately described in my original post, so I added a new benefit for normal actions where I explicitly discuss them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

You should never promote this unless someone has a genuine need for it.

---

I want to encourage you to take a step back and consider the alternative: nobody should promote non-macro actions unless someone has a genuine need for it. By doing so, you are blindly encouraging people to deprive themselves of all the valuable functionality that macros have to offer that could improve their experiences, all under the assumption that what should be more important to them is a lengthier action queue window, which in actuality they may not even be getting any benefit from.

But the better alternative than all of this is to simply provide accurate information on normal actions as well as accurate information on macros, and let every player individually decide what suits them.

Is it possible to set up a macro that will swap the one button out for 1-2-3 rotations like SE does in PvP? I saw that after playing PvP all week and that would be rad to open up some more crossbar space.

Thanks for sharing macro tricks. I use them a lot for crafting, but definitely do not use them to their fullest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChonkGoblinSuprem

Is it possible to set up a macro that will swap the one button out for 1-2-3 rotations like SE does in PvP? I saw that after playing PvP all week and that would be rad to open up some more crossbar space.

---

In short, yes, you can do that. It'll take 3 nearly identical macros to do that, one for each action in the combo:

/macroicon "Split Shot"
/macroerror off
/crosshotbar copy MCH 5 MCH 1
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"
/ac "Split Shot"

The copy command in the macro copies all the buttons on MCH's 5th crosshotbar and pastes them in MCH's 1st crosshotbar. So the idea of these macros is that you'll have 3 different "templates" of your crosshotbar stored somewhere you're not using (this can be anywhere you have extra space, even on a different class like Gladiator or Weaver) and every time you press your combo button, your crosshotbar's buttons will be replaced by the next template in the chain. But for you, the experience will simply be that when you press Split Shot it will become Slug Shot, etc. (also, you can manually run copy commands like that in your chat, which will make it easier to initially populate each "storage" version from your actual crosshotbar)

However, while the PvP combo buttons only cycle to the next part of the combo on a successful hit, this setup will cycle to the next part whenever you press the button. So if you mistime your press, or if you press the button but the enemy was too far away, it will still progress to the next button; that downside is something to be aware of, and depending on your preferences it might mean a macro like this is more trouble than it's worth.

Personally, I prefer to use a slight variation of this technique, one that circumvents that downside by using more button real-estate. In this method, when you press a combo button, the next combo button appears in a different space. That way, if there's a situation where I press the button and for whatever reason the enemy doesn't get hit (like the boss fight transitions to an add phase) I haven't lost my access to the earlier combo button.

It's probably easier to show than tell with this, so when you have a moment check out this short video I made where all 10 of DRG's combo actions (both AoE and single-target) are mapped to only 4 buttons. This video also shows all the macros to do this, as well as all of the crosshotbars that are being used as storage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZo2iWJDrs

The other advantage to using this technique is that at least the way I implement it, I never lose access to my initial single-target attack nor my initial combo attack, so at any point in either combo if I want to switch from one combo to the other, I have access to do that.

This is a bit complex so let me know if I haven't communicated it well; I'm happy to go in-depth and tell you exactly what macros to make and exactly where to put them to try whichever of these techniques seems more preferable to you! Or if this doesn't work for you and you're interested in other alternatives, let me know, too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

I listed them both. The benefits of macros are the cons of normal actions, and the benefits of normal actions are the cons of macros. Each has strengths the other lacks, each has disadvantages the other lacks.

---

Benefits of one does not mean it is a con for the other. This is why, when people make pros and cons for something, you will often find the same thing listed twice, just worded in the opposite way, for example a pro of actions is the larger action queue, however, you do not mention that macros do not interface with the action queue window but you have found a work around, you just say they have a shorter action queue, which is false.

Which is funny when you come up with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

First, I dislike misinformation.

---

Your own quote shares misinformation about how the systems are working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

If someone doesn't like macros and doesn't want to use them, that's fine. But the world is a better place if they make an informed decision rather than a misinformed decision. I genuinely hope this isn't a controversial statement.

---

No, it isn't, however you seem to want to keep avoiding the downsides of macros and instead keep trying to bring them up as some holy grail, when they are not. Yes, they help people who could use them, but they also come with various downsides which need to be addressed.

[QUOTE=LilimoLimomo;6337943]Second, I think it's a misrepresentation to say that macros help people who "have a hard time", because normal actions also help people who "have a hard time". If you're using macros but you have a hard time pressing the button in the proper window, normal actions can help with that. But if you don't have trouble pushing buttons at the right time, you'll only benefit from taking advantage of the additional functionality macros provide. As I've said before and demonstrated in my post, macros have benefits that normal actions don't, and normal actions have benefits that macros don't. By being transparent about both, people can make informed decisions for themselves, and that rules.

Which, again, you don't provide details. For example, normal actions are more flexible in when you want to do something. You might not want to Swiftcast after this action every time, you might not want to Sharpcast every time etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

Part of why there's not a site like that is the misinformation I'm pushing back against; who is going to invest in macros or seek them out when trusted sources are saying "Why you shouldn't macro your GCDs, Macroing GCDs adds up to lost casts overtime, significantly harming your potential"?

---

Because, as a general rule, macros are bad to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

In addition, a site like that wouldn't be able to provide macros "without any extra work" for two reasons:

First, as Sindele pointed out, the rate at which macro lines are executed is determined by framerate. So depending on each individual player's setup, the precise implementation of a macro will need to vary.

---

Doesn't matter with the type of macros you are making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

Second, people have different preferences, and when you're making macros this really comes out. For example, in most cases I tend to like about a 6-frame window to press my GCD's, which means I can structure my macros to perform oGCD's on frame 7, which gives them a bit more of a prompt feel. But someone else might prefer a larger window to press their GCD's, and their macro would need to be structured differently to suit their preferences.

---

Guarantee you aren't doing this based on frames and more on the timing. You only know you can do '7 frames' because you tested and that was likely the shortest window you felt comfortable doing, whereas you can just set it up to be the maximum time and it would make no difference for a single weave. Literally need no knowledge of frames here at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

I want to encourage you to take a step back and consider the alternative: nobody should promote non-macro actions unless someone has a genuine need for it. By doing so, you are blindly encouraging people to deprive themselves of all the valuable functionality that macros have to offer that could improve their experiences, all under the assumption that what should be more important to them is a lengthier action queue window, which in actuality they may not even be getting any benefit from.

---

No, it is for the (proper) action queuing and for the flexibility the normal actions provide, which just makes someone a better player as, in theory, they need to understand why they use an action and not just blindly press a button because it happens to be attached to something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

But the better alternative than all of this is to simply provide accurate information on normal actions as well as accurate information on macros, and let every player individually decide what suits them.

---

Yes, which is what you are not doing. You have your idea, but fail to properly criticise not only normal actions but have a strong bias towards macros to the point you do not clearly show the downsides. For example, the 'macros are not one size fits all' is not a benefit for normal actions, it is a downside to macros. 'Reducing button bloat' is a plus for macros, but isn't a downside for normal actions as everyone has different criteria for what constitutes as 'button bloat', which goes into again why you need a pros and cons list for both normal actions and macros and not to try and combine them.

For the record, I do use a couple of macros (ones to target the OT with Shirk and Intervention), I'm not against them, but you need to properly convey the information so that someone can make an informed decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Benefits of one does not mean it is a con for the other. This is why, when people make pros and cons for something, you will often find the same thing listed twice, just worded in the opposite way, for example a pro of actions is the larger action queue

---

With respect, this is meaningless semantics. In isolation, nothing has benefits or drawbacks; it is only when being compared to something else that such things exist. The reasons to do X instead of Y are the benefits that X has over Y. You could also say that the reasons to do X instead of Y are the downsides that Y has compared to X. Both of these sentences mean exactly the same thing, it's just two different ways of saying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

No, it isn't, however you seem to want to keep avoiding the downsides of macros and instead keep trying to bring them up as some holy grail, when they are not. Yes, they help people who could use them, but they also come with various downsides which need to be addressed.

---

I get the impression you've read my post, so I'm honestly perplexed at how you can think that I haven't been open about the downsides of macros. It's all there on the front page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Which, again, you don't provide details. For example, normal actions are more flexible in when you want to do something. You might not want to Swiftcast after this action every time, you might not want to Sharpcast every time etc.

---

That's not a disadvantage of macros though, that's a disadvantage of a specific macro you could make. But you could also make that exact same macro so that it doesn't cast Sharpcast, and thus that problem doesn't exist. Ergo, it's not a downside of macros. It would be silly to say that a downside of macros is that they do what you programmed them to do, when the obvious solution is to not program them to do what you don't want them to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Because, as a general rule, macros are bad to use.

---

The truth is that whether something is good or bad will always be dependent upon context. Oversimplifying that reality results in truthiness, not truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Doesn't matter with the type of macros you are making.

---

I make a lot of different kinds of macros, as do other people, and I'm writing about all of them. Assumptions will lead you astray and lead to misunderstanding, so please avoid them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Guarantee you aren't doing this based on frames and more on the timing.

---

I believe you read my post, meaning you know that macro lines run one-per-frame. Which means you know that if six lines feel comfortable to me, I know that's 6 frames.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

whereas you can just set it up to be the maximum time and it would make no difference for a single weave.

---

First, single-weaves are great, but don't forget about double-weaves; you can make macros that can be used to manually double-weave, and in those cases getting the timing more precise can be helpful. Second, some people care about the precise timing between their button press and the execution of their skill, and that's a valid way to tune your macro. Again, it's not one-size-fits-all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

No, it is for the (proper) action queuing and for the flexibility the normal actions provide, which just makes someone a better player as, in theory, they need to understand why they use an action and not just blindly press a button because it happens to be attached to something else.

---

The last thing I care about is judging whether someone is a better player or a worse player. My only interest is in giving them the tools so that they can improve their play to the threshold they desire, and have a good time while doing so.

Beyond that, I'm not sure where you'd get the idea that macro players are blindly pressing buttons? After taking the time to type out a macro, test it, and tune it to your preferences, it seems unlikely that a player wouldn't know what to expect when they press it during combat. You might need to explain this in more detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Benefits of one does not mean it is a con for the other.

---

When there are only two options, as in this case -- effectively, [A] or [Not-A] -- yes, they do. That is exactly what they mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

Did you happen to test whether FPS affects the queue window for non-macro actions? My assumption would be that normal actions will not be affected by FPS, but I'd rather have data if anyone can conjure it.

---

It's .5 seconds prior to GCD refresh. Latency may be involved - lag compensation in this game has changed a couple times - but FPS isn't.

Also, to reiterate my stance:

1) I would caution anyone to be heavily skeptical of any claims about macros using deliberate frame timing unless they come with a hefty disclaimer about being absolutely 100% certain you can maintain a perfectly consistent FPS. (And, well... for most players, I wish you good luck with that. You're gonna need it.)

2) I still don't believe we have enough data to claim that there is *no* GCD delay or loss of casts until there's data from high latency tests. I have an idea for how to do it myself, but it's gonna be ramshackle as hell and I haven't got around to it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

I want to encourage you to take a step back and consider the alternative: nobody should promote non-macro actions unless someone has a genuine need for it.

---

There's a key difference between advocating for macros and advocating for normal actions: only one of those options is how the game was designed to be played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

There's a key difference between advocating for macros and advocating for normal actions: only one of those options is how the game was designed to be played.

---

You have it backwards: players wouldn't be able to use macros if the game wasn't explicitly designed to be able to be played with them. They aren't an accident, the devs added them on purpose, so players could use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

You have it backwards: players wouldn't be able to use macros if the game wasn't explicitly designed to be able to be played with them. They aren't an accident, the devs added them on purpose, so players could use them.

---

Though they also seemingly went out of their way to limit them, as certain constraints were added since the rerelease Beta, iirc, and comparable macro systems in other MMOs are not thus restricted. /shrug

For my part, macros seem good for cross-target functionality, allowing a single button to be useful both for clicking on allies and enemies. You give up some queuing leniency for it, but w/e.

More complex functions, though, seem to tend to break down or require an inordinate amount of gimmicking and hotbar space. Which is a bit sad. I feel like the game could simultaneously manage more difficulty and accessibility if it further fleshed out its means of linking buttons to actions in player-customizable --and thereby potentially far more intuitive and efficient-- ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

More complex functions, though, seem to tend to break down or require an inordinate amount of gimmicking and hotbar space. Which is a bit sad. I feel like the game could simultaneously manage more difficulty and accessibility if it further fleshed out its means of linking buttons to actions in player-customizable --and thereby potentially far more intuitive and efficient-- ways.

---

Yeah, I presume it's similar to the reason they don't allow add-ons: they want players to be able to do certain things but not other things, so they designed a macro system that had different capabilities than some other games. It's certainly double-edged, and I wouldn't say no to more capabilities, especially if they helped with accessibility. But given that we've got the macro system we've got, the best we can do is to help educate people about it's capabilities, since it's in many ways unintuitive.

The hotbar gimmicking/space is certainly a cost of certain macros (generally my favorite macros), so I'm going to edit my main post to explicitly mention that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

It's .5 seconds prior to GCD refresh. Latency may be involved - lag compensation in this game has changed a couple times - but FPS isn't.

---

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

I still don't believe we have enough data to claim that there is *no* GCD delay or loss of casts until there's data from high latency tests.

---

This is a good point; rather than saying that we've proved it absolutely isn't a thing, it would be more accurate to say that "at present there isn't any evidence to suggest that macros result in GCD delay or lost casts". I'll adjust my main post to use that language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

Yeah, I presume it's similar to the reason they don't allow add-ons: they want players to be able to do certain things but not other things, so they designed a macro system that had different capabilities than some other games. It's certainly double-edged, and I wouldn't say no to more capabilities, especially if they helped with accessibility. But given that we've got the macro system we've got, the best we can do is to help educate people about it's capabilities, since it's in many ways unintuitive.

---

It just seems to me that there's a much more useful balance, is all. If they immediately checked through each action in series (top to bottom) up to the point where one is actionable per its parameters and queued just that first one, we'd be able to essentially have a UImouseover-ally, UImousover-enemy, field-mouseover-enemy, field-mouseover-ally, target-enemy, target-ally, and, say, a range check and movement check option for each action, if we so pleased, we could still queue even without need separate buttons for the likes of Aetherial Manipulation, Ruin II, Aetherflow (as the subsequent actions are only possible with AF stacks available, so you could just attach Aetherflow in the same macro as them, lower than the desired action), Piercing Talon, Ogi Namikiri, and so forth, and healers, for instance, could have their instant cast GCD button, for instance, be Regen on an ally and Dia on an enemy, saving further space that way if they so please. Etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

It just seems to me that there's a much more useful balance, is all. If they immediately checked through each action in series (top to bottom) up to the point where one is actionable per its parameters and queued just that first one, we'd be able to essentially have a UImouseover-ally, UImousover-enemy, field-mouseover-enemy, field-mouseover-ally, target-enemy, target-ally, and, say, a range check and movement check option for each action, if we so pleased, we could still queue even without need separate buttons for the likes of Aetherial Manipulation, Ruin II, Aetherflow (as the subsequent actions are only possible with AF stacks available, so you could just attach Aetherflow in the same macro as them, lower than the desired action), Piercing Talon, Ogi Namikiri, and so forth, and healers, for instance, could have their instant cast GCD button, for instance, be Regen on an ally and Dia on an enemy, saving further space that way if they so please. Etc, etc.

---

I like the idea of a macro system that can intelligently queue, but I don't think a macro system that only queues one action would truly solve this issue, because there would be cases where actions that are available when the queuing started are no longer available when the player is ready to cast an action, and vice versa. Because in the time between queuing an action and it going off:

• My position can change, making a skill require 3 yalms either castable or not castable relative to a skill requiring 15 yalms. This could change due to player movement, knockback/pull-in effects, or Rescue.
• My ability to perform actions might change. For example, I could become Silenced, making my prioritized spell no longer castable, but my second-place skill would be.
• A status like Slow could even change when my GCD becomes available, which could in turn change whether an ability I have on cooldown would be available to cast at that time.

These edge cases have the potential to make the system feel clunky when unexpected things happen quickly.

Instead, I would suggest a small alteration to your idea: that the macro system queue the entire list of prioritized actions. Maybe that means that there's a cap to the number of actions that can be queued in this way to prevent 15 different actions from being attempted for the whole queue window? But that would at least mean that the first action to genuinely have all of its activation criteria met would be the one that gets used, which is probably what the player wants.

While we don't have that system, it's probably worth stating that we have a lesser version of it, and it can perform some of the things you've mentioned, just not with the same level of polish. On my PS5, I use the SMN version of the following macro and it works great for me without clipping any GCD's:

/macroicon "Ruin II"
/macroerror off
/ac "Ruin II"
/ac "Ruin II"
/ac "Ruin II"
/ac "Ruin II"
/ac "Ruin II"
/ac "Ruin II"
/ac "Ruin II"
/ac "Energy Drain"
/ac "Aetherflow"

Pressing this makes it so Ruin II is cast if GCD is available, but if not then it'll do Energy Drain if you have Aetherflow charges, otherwise it will cast Aetherflow. The repeated Ruin II lines not only act as a "queue" for Ruin II, but also for the other oGCD's as well. Technically there's a downside where Energy Drain and Aetherflow will always be "queued" for all of the Ruin II frames, and thus they will always have a short cast delay, but I've found that this doesn't matter at all for single-weaves, and depending on when you press buttons and your framerate you might be able to get it working for double-weaves. I'd recommend giving it a shot, probably adding more Ruin II or removing them to see if you can get it to line up with your preferences.

You can technically make a macro that does either Regen or Dia depending on whether you're targeting an ally or not, it's just going to cost you a single frame roughly half the time. It's up to you whether that's worth the cost. Something like this:

Edit: As Frizze pointed out, the below macro does not work because healing spells cast on yourself if an enemy is targeted.

/macroicon "Regen"
/macroerror off
/ac "Regen"
/ac "Dia"
/ac "Regen"
/ac "Dia"
/ac "Regen"
/ac "Dia"
/ac "Regen"
/ac "Dia"
/ac "Regen"
/ac "Dia"
/ac "Regen"
/ac "Dia"
/ac "Regen"

(I can't tell whether you meant that you already use a macro like this earlier, so forgive me if I'm telling you something you already know!)

Preliminary waitless lag testing complete, again using the "micon-error off-13x blizzard" macro. Not super comprehensive, but when I'm seeing no measurable additional delay over the standard queue in my initial simple worst-case test - 36fps @ >600ms (+270ms delay added to both sending + receiving packets) - I don't think there's a lot of merit to turning more dials for the sake of more complete but non-illuminatory data.

I'm mildly surprised, but I shouldn't be in retrospect - I already know the server gives the client an excessively long leash with what it considers valid with regards to ability casts and the GCD from the tools and exploits that exist in the wild.

That said, this is still only passing a basic "not actively detrimental when used as a 1:1 button replacement" test. My other concerns with more convoluted macros remain, as well as the dilemmas that can't be solved with data alone like the negative interactions with slidecasting and the fact that any double presses/mashing will bite you. Used correctly, you aren't likely to lose casts or suffer a GCD delay... but "used correctly" is a phrase doing some extremely heavy lifting there.

For the curious, potential vectors for continued investigation and/or slack methodology issues:
- are waits affected differently? logically this seems very unlikely given that everything else in macro resolution is handled clientside, but...
- i'm timestamping on chat message receipt (to pick up both /echo and casts in the battle log) - sniffing packets directly would be more precise but more tedious
- not a "real" lag scenario, but i'm confident that it was behaving reasonably accurate to lag in the wild. someone with more time could probably get a more accurate real-world test by running from NA on OCE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

I like the idea of a macro system that can intelligently queue, but I don't think a macro system that only queues one action would truly solve this issue, because there would be cases where actions that are available when the queuing started are no longer available when the player is ready to cast an action, and vice versa.

---

That's why I mentioned the first actionable/possible action. Wrong target type (between PM/friendly/nonfriendly)? Target dead? Target out of range? It'd then check the next action macroed and use the highest of that list. Note that even regular actions do this, such that the range we can pull off an action from can be well above our actual "maximum range", given sufficient difference in position between when the action was checked and when it appeared to go off.

And again, the idea is simply to strike a balance between what behavior the devs want to forbid (e.g., auto-play or PvE combo consolidation... beyond the ones they already consolidated) and what they allow, un-neutering just whatever seems to be the intended uses of macros.

Yes, we can already use a Dia/Regen macro to make it so the button is of use regardless of target type, but we sacrifice queuing to do so. Given that we CAN do that through the macro with just a bit more timing or button-mashing, though, it seems well enough intended to be functional that the devs may as well let that be queued.

On the other hand, something like a <wait> macro using decimal seconds or %GCDs is not at all decently possible, while combo-in-1-button macros rely on the clunkiest of gimmicks and disused hotbars to draw from. As such, they seem wholly unintended, and so I wouldn't bother asking for what all would be necessary to make them function properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

Preliminary waitless lag testing complete, again using the "micon-error off-13x blizzard" macro. Not super comprehensive, but when I'm seeing no measurable additional delay over the standard queue in my initial simple worst-case test - 36fps @ >600ms (+270ms delay added to both sending + receiving packets) - I don't think there's a lot of merit to turning more dials for the sake of more complete but non-illuminatory data.

I'm mildly surprised, but I shouldn't be in retrospect - I already know the server gives the client an excessively long leash with what it considers valid with regards to ability casts and the GCD from the tools and exploits that exist in the wild.

---

Thanks for doing these tests and sharing the results with us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindele

My other concerns with more convoluted macros remain, as well as the dilemmas that can't be solved with data alone like the negative interactions with slidecasting and the fact that any double presses/mashing will bite you. Used correctly, you aren't likely to lose casts or suffer a GCD delay... but "used correctly" is a phrase doing some extremely heavy lifting there.

---

Haha, personally I wouldn't say "extremely", but yes, if a player uses macros incorrectly you can definitely shoot yourself in the foot. That's why my goal is to honestly present both the pros and cons of macros, so that players can decide whether macros could make things better for them or whether they would just be more of a chore. And on that note, this makes me realize that I should add "you can safely mash normal actions" to the list of benefits on the front page, so I'll do that right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

That's why I mentioned the first actionable/possible action. Wrong target type (between PM/friendly/nonfriendly)? Target dead? Target out of range? It'd then check the next action macroed and use the highest of that list. Note that even regular actions do this, such that the range we can pull off an action from can be well above our actual "maximum range", given sufficient difference in position between when the action was checked and when it appeared to go off.

---

Ah, I think I was thrown off because the way you initially described it before was:

"If they immediately checked through each action in series (top to bottom) up to the point where one is actionable per its parameters and queued just that first one"

If the action can actually be performed right now, then there would be no queuing, right? It would just do the action now? Let me know if I'm still misunderstanding you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Yes, we can already use a Dia/Regen macro to make it so the button is of use regardless of target type, but we sacrifice queuing to do so. Given that we CAN do that through the macro with just a bit more timing or button-mashing, though, it seems well enough intended to be functional that the devs may as well let that be queued.

---

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, that macro does have less of a "queue" window, especially depending on your system setup, so that is something you'd have to sacrifice. It would be nice if we could do it without that sacrifice though.

Also, it's probably worth noting that in the current system if you wanted to mash a macro like that, you would want to take the first two lines (/macroicon and /macroerror) and move them to the bottom of the macro instead of the top, because those lines run 1-per-frame like all the other lines, even though they aren't trying to cast actions. That will result in better performance.

Regardless of the nitty-gritty, I think you're right: if we can do these things with macros already, it would be nice if the implementation of macros were a bit more polished so that they didn't come with a handful of downsides.

Macroing everything and rotations, will slow you and cost you loss in DPS/HPS and more... it is a simple fact of extra added latency or one more step between hitting the actual button... and that is all that what you can say about that, also you often run into situations you can't macro yourself out as well.

So stop wasting your time making a long post about it... and there is limits as how you can do the timing.

The only way you can make these things instant is if you can map your hardware outside of the game, but you may run into certain conflicts like that, that wont be to your advantage upon discovery.

Edit:
Also the timing between steps... they will be there 0.2 second is 200ms and not even with a massive an insane good ping to the server, that I have that is like between 16 and 26ms would make me benefit from any macro at all that is resulting in heavy combat, you need to look upon how macros work, and how they are executed, and what delays you are forced to add for these scripts... it wont be in your favor, and if all you want to do is to justify using them yourself, then you may end getting kicked alot inside the game for not performing or playing the game well enough even in casual content.

An experienced player will take notice of fishy things and rule them out quite fast, by just taking note of the people am playing with and their jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

When there are only two options, as in this case -- effectively, [A] or [Not-A] -- yes, they do. That is exactly what they mean.

---

In general yes, but not in the way it has been presented in the OP (bear in mind they also want to quash any misinformation). Let's go though the list:

Benefits of actions:
-Larger action queue window

Straight off the bat we are off to a bad start. The first is it implies the action queue length varies, it does not and that macros interact with the action queue system, which they do not. Considering actions are the standard, this point should be a disadvantage to macros in that they do not interact with the queue at all, however there are ways to mitigate this problem to be less of an issue.

-Macros are not one size fits all

Again, this isn't a benefit to actions, this is a downside to macros. You cannot just copy another macro from someone else and expect it to necessarily suit your needs, you will potentially need to adapt it to your personal play.

-You don't have to make a macro

Should this even need to be said? If you don't use macros, you don't need to macro. Brilliant insight /s. This isn't really an advantage/disadvantage.

-You shouldn't button mash macros

This should be, you cannot button mash macros with the explanation being that when you press a macro, it stops any previous macros completely and starts the new one. This, again, isn't a benefit of normal actions, this is a disadvantage of macros.

Just from the 'benefits' of normal actions, they list 3 things that mention the disadvantage of macros and fail to talk about the advantages of normal actions, the 2 main ones being interacting with the action queue and the extra flexibility it provides when needed.

Now, onto the benefits of macros:
-You can reduce button bloat

As I have previously stated, that entirely depends on what you class as button bloat and whether it is an issue with the job you are playing. Most would say a job like Summoner does not have button bloat (infact, many say the opposite) but a job like Paladin does have button bloat. I will still put it as a benefit.

-You can make single buttons that perform different actions depending on context

it should be highlighted that there is limited scope for context here. Having a macro that casts either Fire 3 or Blizzard 3 depending on whether you are in AF/UI is something that would be classed as contextual. However, the limited scope is not something that is bought up. In SOME contexts it can help, others it is useless.

-You can automate single weaves

Yes, but you lose the flexibility. You don't necessarily want to Swiftcast/Sharpcast/Triplecast every time you use a specific action, but again, this limitation is not highlighted.

-You can automate chains of actions

I will give credit and say the OP does specify that you will mess with GCD timings, however I would NOT list this as a benefit of using macros and instead list it as a limitation, or potential things to watch out for when making macros.

-Macros are code, so they can do other stuff, too

There is literally no point here, this is just something to pad out the list.

So, overall, for benefits of macros, we have 1 benefit, 2 cases of not giving the full picture, one that is listed as a benefit and should not be and 1 that is just padding.

So with everything laid out as it is, it is necessarily designed to completely obfuscate the actual information that is meant to be provided. All my argumentation in this whole thread has been to be completely transparent about benefits and limitations of the system so that someone can make an informed decision. This does mean, you do not need to list advantages/disadvantages of 'normal actions, however, you need to be clear in the advantages and disadvantages of using macros compared to 'normal actions'.

So, if I was making the list, it would be more along the lines of this:

Advantages:
-Ability to combine 2 buttons

Whilst this is possible, it is important to note there are limitations. 2 GCDs on one button, reduced flexibility etc.

-Limited contextual actions

You can choose to have Nascent Flash/Bloodwhetting on a single button as the usage is based on target, however, you cannot use context based on resources/buffs/debuffs.

-It can help people with disabilities

Whilst this isn't applicable to everyone, it can help some who want to enjoy the game and what it has to offer whilst still being able to play your job at a somewhat competent level.

Disadvantages:
-Does not engage with the action queue time

This is the system where you can press the action early and it will still go off, there are ways to mitigate this loss in the macros, but it is something to keep in mind

-Reduced Flexibility

You might not want an action to always be used when you use something else, for example always using Sharpcast after an UI Paradox or using Geirskogul whenever it is off of cooldown.

-Learning macros

Whilst it is not necessarily hard to make a basic macro, if it doesn't work for some reason, it might be hard to find why it doesn't.

I have massively condensed explanations for each point to save space and I'm likely to have missed some so they would need to be expanded on, however, that is the general layout that should be used. you can clearly see the advantages and disadvantages of using macros, instead of having to hunt through other bits of text. It might also be an idea to make another list of 'things to note' that aren't necessarily advantages or disadvantages, but something to be aware of, like the framerate affecting how quickly the macros go off.

In short, I generally have no issue with the post, it has shown some of the limitations of macros can be circumvented, what I generally have an issue with is how the information is displayed and conveyed. The OP has continued to try and obfuscate the downsides of macros and continue to push hat macros are good, when that shouldn't be the general message. They continue to obfuscate the disadvantages and continue to say things like 'macros have a shorter queue window', which is fundamentally false, they, by design do NOT queue at all, which can be classed as misinformation, which the OP hates, which then makes them a hypocrite. I could say more on that, but I'm not going to as it would be pure speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

No, this is what it's all about. This is what will make you drift. This is literally the exact reason why balance advises to not macro GCDs.

---

IMHO if you're not on the cutting edge of content, it doesn't matter.

Hell I've used rotational macros and still been near the top of the aggro (wink wink) in 8 mans / 24 mans.

In casual content it doesn't matter at all other than some elitist perception you have to have 100% uptime on GCDs and I'm not ashamed to say that. Sometimes if the boss is just a massive HP sponge, pushing a macro seems to be equal measures. If CBU3 can't design good encounters why should I put forth extra effort? If my team mates are slacking hard and we're still killing bosses, why should I put forth more effort?

Some days you just don't give a d@mn

Crafters use macros and no one shames them (they're commended) because they result in a win (craft HQ'd), why is there a stigma on DoW/DoM using macros to kill bosses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

In general yes, but not in the way it has been presented in the OP.

---

Fair enough. My point was more that such was an issue in framing, not to there being specific advantages to option A that were not disadvantages to Not-A or vice versa.

Macros's disadvantage in needing time to set up = Base Action's comparative advantage in NOT needing time to set up.
Macro's advantage in being further able to combine multiple actions into a single button = Base Action's comparative disadvantage in NOT being further able to combine multiple actions into a single button.
Macro's disadvantage in potentially needing individuation = Base Action's comparative advantage in NOT needing individuation.

So on and so forth.

If you attempt to declare a "default" option --such that not needing individuation or set-up time cannot be considered an "advantage"-- you're still ultimately comparing Macros to that default (which is just base actions anyways), changing nothing.

If I had to summarize his list more concisely and stuck to only what options aren't pretty heavily discouraged by macro's present limitations, it'd just be that "Macros allow one to set up alternate (and/or additional) actions within a single button press but sacrifice a broader queuing period (and/or weave efficiency) in doing so."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

In casual content it doesn't matter at all other than some elitist perception you have to have 100% uptime on GCDs and I'm not ashamed to say that.

---

https://i.imgur.com/Hj6siEb.jpeg

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I am curious.

I get that an optimal player will be better without macros, but is there a point where a bad player can play “good enough” with macros? And are certain jobs more receptive/forgiving of macro-use?

Like Ninja jitsu presses are much faster by hand, I would think. But putting oGCDs (like assassinate) on GCDs so they fire when the GCD isn’t ready yet is better than the bad player just not using the oGCDs at all… right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

Crafters use macros and no one shames them (they're commended) because they result in a win (craft HQ'd), why is there a stigma on DoW/DoM using macros to kill bosses?

---

Crafters are only giving up their own time if they macro, while combat jobs are affecting everyone else in the instance. That's the obvious difference.