Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rin_Sato

You're absolutely right.
Please record yourself playing a complete duty with macros such as these as a demonstration, rather than armchair it against a dummy, with hardly 30 seconds of combat.

---

Your refering to 1-minute of casting as "hardly 30 seconds of combat" doesn't exactly inspire confidence that you are approaching this in good faith. But let's talk in spite of that.

If you truly think that the video I provided was "armchair", my best guess is that you don't know what armchair means in this context. Which is fair enough, nobody knows every word. I'll just cut from Wikipedia to make it easy:

Armchair theorizing, also known as armchair philosophizing or armchair scholarship, is an approach to providing new developments in a field that does not involve primary research or data collection.

So what I did wasn't "armchair" by any stretch of the imagination, as I actually collected data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rin_Sato

Further, I'd urge you to view the combat log of such a duty and in whatever way you please, be it by writing code or manually, figure out how much uptime you had (how many gcds you lost/didnt lose).
After posting a complete log with all actions listed along with your skill speed, it will not be difficult for others to replicate or counter whatever the "proof" ends up being, which would be a reasonably thorough methodology.

---

With respect, what you're proposing would make an exceedingly poor experiment. A good experiment aims to be as simple as possible so that it can reduce the likelihood of confounding variables. To engage in a full duty would add a ton of unnecessary confounding variables to the experiment.

And even a lay-person should be able to see why that is. Every time you complete a duty, you're going to do something at least slightly differently. You won't move into the exact same place at the exact same time, an ability might target you during one fight but not target you during the next, and of course, there's always human error. Which leads to the question of whether any differences were due to the thing you were trying to measure, or because of these other factors.

That's why a well-designed experiment will reduce the complexity of the the system being analyzed via strict control, to reduce the likelihood that the results are being impacted by multiple forces, which would make it more difficult to distinguish what the actual cause for any disparity was.

So if you want to determine whether macros innately result in action loss, then the experiment I've already done has a far more effective methodology than what you're suggesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikoko_Miko

Is it a DPS loss to use macros?
Useful Healing Macros

---

I loved browsing these threads. It was so nice seeing such constructive discourse as people tried to help each other solve such a variety of problems! In ways it reminds me of finding a nice thread on Stackoverflow where people are collaborating in good faith to explore the best ways of solving nuanced problems.

Those are good vibes. ^^

The real question is: why tf is mouseover still not a thing in 2024???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teno

The real question is: why tf is mouseover still not a thing in 2024???

---

I'm not sure what you mean; you can make a mouseover macro, and even benefit from macro queuing by repeating the /ac "Spell name" <mo> line multiple times in a row.

Though if you're wondering why it mouseovers don't apply to normal actions, I can only guess. It seems like you'd need a way to clarify to the system that the skill you're using should target a mouseover target rather than use the normal targeting system. So at the very least, it seems like you'd need some sort of toggle to turn on-and-off mouseover targeting, or perhaps separate actions for "Cure (normal target version)" and "Cure (mouseover version)"? Have other MMO's done something like this? It's been a hot minute since I played WoW.

Alternatively, it could just be that they're satisfied with the fact that macros can do it, and thus see developing an additional way to do mouseover as redundant.

But those are just guesses; only the devs truly know the answer.

Some spells such as Blizzard or Holy still have same cast time and recast time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikoko_Miko

/macrolock
/crosshotbar copy BLM 2 BLM 3
/crosshotbar copy BLM 1 BLM 2
/crosshotbar copy BLM 3 BLM 1
/crosshotbar set Transpose 1 RAU
/macroicon Transpose action <wait.1>
/crosshotbar copy BLM 3 BLM 1

This is based on a macro I saw somewhere in Japan.

---

I identified the source of hotbar copy & set macros. It uses the same method as in the Macrology text.
【FF14】マクロでも先行入力を可能にする方法 (FF14 How to enable queue input using macros)
A macro in the video is like this. It was posted in 2015. It contains a removed action.

/micon "Fast Blade"
/ac "Fast Blade" <t>
/crosshotbar copy PLD 1 GLA 1
/crosshotbar set "Fast Blade" 1 RA3 <wait.1>
/crosshotbar set "Savage Blade" 1 RA3 <wait.3>
/crosshotbar copy GLA 1 PLD 1

This type of macro guarantees no GCD delay in exchange for additional presses. Unfortunately this method cannot be applied to many of my macros for GCD actions. I heavily use mouseover macros. These cannot be used without macros and pseuedo-queue is the only available option.

I found another video showing GCD delay.
【FF14】GCD遅延検証Ping40代とスキルマクロ(FF14 GCD Delay Inspection: 40ms range ping and macros)

It compares 4 cases side-by-side by repeated casting Jolt on a striking dummy. It was posted in 2023.
(1) average ping 41 normal action
(2) average ping 3 normal action
(3) average ping 3 single line macro
(4) average ping 3 repeated line macro
The video is paused at 0:07. Before the second cast (3) caused a delay. After an explanation, pause is canceled at 1:54. There are no significant delay other than in (3) after 50 casts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilimoLimomo

Your refering to 1-minute of casting as "hardly 30 seconds of combat" doesn't exactly inspire confidence that you are approaching this in good faith. But let's talk in spite of that.

If you truly think that the video I provided was "armchair", my best guess is that you don't know what armchair means in this context. Which is fair enough, nobody knows every word. I'll just cut from Wikipedia to make it easy:

Armchair theorizing, also known as armchair philosophizing or armchair scholarship, is an approach to providing new developments in a field that does not involve primary research or data collection.

So what I did wasn't "armchair" by any stretch of the imagination, as I actually collected data.



With respect, what you're proposing would make an exceedingly poor experiment. A good experiment aims to be as simple as possible so that it can reduce the likelihood of confounding variables. To engage in a full duty would add a ton of unnecessary confounding variables to the experiment.

And even a lay-person should be able to see why that is. Every time you complete a duty, you're going to do something at least slightly differently. You won't move into the exact same place at the exact same time, an ability might target you during one fight but not target you during the next, and of course, there's always human error. Which leads to the question of whether any differences were due to the thing you were trying to measure, or because of these other factors.

That's why a well-designed experiment will reduce the complexity of the the system being analyzed via strict control, to reduce the likelihood that the results are being impacted by multiple forces, which would make it more difficult to distinguish what the actual cause for any disparity was.

So if you want to determine whether macros innately result in action loss, then the experiment I've already done has a far more effective methodology than what you're suggesting.

---

This is hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rin_Sato

This is hilarious.

---

You are trolling. The people you are attacking have provided every evidence and constructively reasoned and tested case we could ask for, and all you have done to continue claiming they are wrong, is ridicule and denial.

Even a lay person would realize that fights are not just a target dummy and that it's an unrealistic situation lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

Even a lay person would realize that fights are not just a target dummy and that it's an unrealistic situation lol

---

This is EXACTLY what training dummies are BETTER at, if you are trying to prove gcd cycle differences.

When automobile manufacturers benchmark the performance of their new models, they do so on a testbed, not by driving it randomly through a couple of towns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrilona

This is EXACTLY what training dummies are BETTER at, if you are trying to prove gcd cycle differences.

When automobile manufacturers benchmark the performance of their new models, they do so on a testbed, not by driving it randomly through a couple of towns.

---

TIL that I'm actually driving a car when I play this game. Good thing i have a driver's licence.