Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

[LilimoLimomo]

Your macro doesn't queue, it just smashes the button over and over until it goes off (assuming the macro doesn't end before), this is different to ACTUAL action queuing where it stores the action to use, then executes it when it is available.

You know, I'm not actually sure what's happening from an implementation standpoint on the back-end for normal buttons. They might actually queue, or they might repeatedly try the same way macros do. Have the devs ever explained how that works? Regardless of what's happening in implementation though, using the term queuing seems close enough and has the benefit of making explanations less wordy and easier to follow. Though if you can think of any reasons why there's a meaningful difference from a user experience standpoint, I'd be curious to hear!

As for your macro example, assuming you don't have the other actions available on your bars, why would you want to restrict yourself in that way? What if you don't want to Swiftcast and Sharpcast in the same GCD window?

Fair question! I'm a controller-user with arthritis that makes it difficult and painful to press certain buttons or combinations of buttons. This was never an issue in ARR when jobs like BLM had fewer actions (and 1/4 of them weren't even worth putting on you crosshotbar), but as the game has progressed the number of actions has increased, and now they're nearly all viable parts of BLM's kit. There are now more useful actions for BLM than can be fit on a single crosshotbar, and with my arthritis it's not really viable to to even use that whole crosshotbar. But there are some buttons I can comfortably use regularly, and other buttons I can comfortably use sparingly. Being able to map multiple actions onto a single button really helps me in this regard.

And beyond that, it's just convenient in many cases. I don't need two buttons for Ley Lines and Between the Lines. I don't need two buttons for Blizzard III and Despair. If I press my Flare macro during oGCD then it casts Manafont. These are macros that not everyone needs, but to some people, depending on their needs and preferences, they will make the game more manageable.

For the specific macro you're talking about, it's worth noting that this is a macro that is tuned to my specific needs; because of how tied it is to the specific way I play, I would not broadly recommend this as a macro that others should use. But it's an example of a more complex macro that I do actually use.

The Swiftcast part of the macro is something I recently added that I would consider a work-in-progress, and I may modify in the future; at present, I'm in the testing phase to see whether I like it, whether it causes problems, and whether my brain can successfully make the connection between Swiftcast and that button. I will openly say that Swiftcast being part of this macro is likely not ideal, but my crosshotbars are full of buttons I can press without discomfort and ramifications. So I'm experimenting with ways to add this button into other macros to cast during oGCD times. Also, as luck would have it, with the rhythm at which I press buttons, Sharpcast never gets cast after Swiftcast, presumably because simply press other buttons before it can. Another reason why I believe in tailoring macros to the needs of the person; macros are generally not a one-size-fits-all thing!

Also, why have you done AE in that way? You cannot guarantee it goes off if you don't properly time it and it will be much more responsive if you had it as a separate button.

100% true! This works for my needs at present because AE has always been the BLM skill I am worst at. I am bad at remembering it exists, and bad at executing it when I need to. One of my goals is to get better at AE, so I have actually put a single cast of AE at the very beginning of many of my BLM macros, so that when I remember it exists (which will surely be in a mild panic), almost any button I press will cast it. At present, I don't have to worry about its responsiveness because if I am pressing the AE button I have already at least briefly stopped my rotation. With practice, I'm getting better at it, faster at it! And if and when I reach the point where I'm doing it so fast that queuing functionality would benefit me, at that time I'll probably try to redesign my macros and crosshotbar layout.

Also, you can have /micon as the last line and it will still show the right icon on your macro and it won't delay the rest of your macro by however long it takes to run 1line, making it slightly more responsive. I do not believe you can do that with the /macroerror off however.

I've never seen anyone talk about this before, but this is indeed something I've been wanting to test: whether those "meta" lines actually result in a delay. At least for my needs, it's generally not an issue because I take advantage of the queuing properties of my macros and thus I'm rarely, if ever, pressing a button at the exact same moment I expect the spell to start casting, so if /micon does result in a delay, then for my needs it is probably better to have it in the front, as that's a part of the macro I expect to activate very little. Though I suppose I also don't expect the end to activate very often either. Now I'm hungry to test this! ^^

[Mikey_R]

You know, I'm not actually sure what's happening from an implementation standpoint on the back-end for normal buttons. They might actually queue, or they might repeatedly try the same way macros do. Have the devs ever explained how that works? Regardless of what's happening in implementation though, using the term queuing seems close enough and has the benefit of making explanations less wordy and easier to follow. Though if you can think of any reasons why there's a meaningful difference from a user experience standpoint, I'd be curious to hear!

Queuing has it's own definition, in that you can press an action before you can use it and it still goes off when it is first available. Macros do not interact with this at all and the devs have said as such in the past when people have asked about this (this is back in 2.0 days). They have specifically said they do not want people to use macros to essentially automate combat and so they do not behave the same as the actual actions.

Now, whilst I do not know exactly how it works, I can speculate how the queuing system works on the back end in a very simple example. GCD on cooldown, at some point the game goes, queue open, stores a single input (the last one pressed), queue closes, GCD is off cooldown, activate action. All a controlled environment as opposed to smashing the button (digitally speaking) which is just unnecessary processor usage. Macros are not counted as something that interacts with that system and so macros do not queue.

Fair question! I'm a controller-user with arthritis that makes it difficult and painful to press certain buttons or combinations of buttons.

You see, this changes things. It is one thing to claim macros aren't bad, when everyone knows that they are and it is another to say, I have this condition, however, I have found a way to use macros to allow me to play/enjoy the game more. The difference here is that, you are trying to say, see macros aren't bad, I don't know what you are talking about, whereas, 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.

So really, it is how you came across, 'look, I know you all think you know what is going on, however, I'm going to prove you all wrong with faulty testing and bad takes'. That is how you came across. If you had started it off with, look, I have a condition and am trying to make macros work slightly better for me, here is what I have found, I guarantee it would have been better received.

I've never seen anyone talk about this before, but this is indeed something I've been wanting to test: whether those "meta" lines actually result in a delay.

Macros work by executing every line in sequence irregardless of what it is. I just tested and it definitely makes a difference, even if in reality it is imperceivably.

(Test was done with 2 macros, macro 1 line 1 /echo 1, line 2 /echo 2. This just pastes 1 and 2 in chat that only you can see. Second macro was the same, except every line had a /micon Triplecast in every line except line 1 and 15. Then, just used them. You should be able to see the difference in time it takes. Note that you cannot leave any lines blank otherwise the macro will not work and break. I originally tried to test with blank lines and the 2 never came out).

[LilimoLimomo]

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!

[Mikey_R]

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.

[LilimoLimomo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Mikey_R]

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:

First, I dislike misinformation.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[LilimoLimomo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Shurrikhan]

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.