Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

[Rein_eon_Osborne]

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.

[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

[IDontPetLalas]

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).

[LilimoLimomo]

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.

[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.

[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.

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

[LilimoLimomo]

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!

[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.