Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

[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.

[Sindele]

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.

[Iscah]

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.

[LilimoLimomo]

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!

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.

[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.

[Mikey_R]

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.