Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

[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.