Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

[LilimoLimomo]

And no, the 30 second clip in the op doesn't count, even though I can see very clear and obvious clipping in it.

Hmmm, it's odd that in all the time this thread has been up, with all the pushback this thread has received, nobody has ever mentioned this "clear and obvious clipping" in my updated test video. Which is strange, because you'd think that if someone wanted to call my evidence into question, this would be the easiest and most effective way to do it! But perhaps no one else has your keen eyes?

Though, it's odd that you would make a post focusing on a request for new tests if you had already invalidated my old tests. You could have simply pointed out the clipping, been specific about when it was happening and how you could tell so that any reader (myself included) could verify your claim of the test's fault, and that alone would have removed the foundation of my arguments. It certainly is odd that instead of simply doing that you only mentioned this "clipping" as a vague footnote.

And alongside the above, it does feel a bit odd that you'd mention a "30 second clip" when that's an order of magnitude shorter than my actual test video. Are you certain you watched the right video?

All of which is to say: sus.

But just because it's sus doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong. So could you provide more details about this clipping that would allow others to verify it? The more information you provide, the better we'll be able to see eye-to-eye.

Op, all you do is ask people to "try it and see." You provide data, but have no demonstration to back up said data.

The test is a demonstration of the data. It answers the question "do macros innately cause action loss".

That said, I understand what you're getting at. You're more or less asking a different but related question: "Yes, you have data that demonstrates that macros don't innately cause action loss, but can a person really use macros in a way that doesn't cost them some amount of action loss?" It's a valid question.

There's a reason I haven't focused on that question, and that's because it's trivially easy to answer: it depends on context, ergo yes.

Because even if macros did cause significant action loss, there are plenty of FF14 players who would still benefit from macros. For example, it's not uncommon for players to have trouble remembering where 30 different actions are on their controller, and when you have trouble finding an action it can end up taking precious seconds to find and use it. Some players will be able to improve and readily access every action in their arsenal, but others will hit a wall. If the use of macros can make actions easier to find for this kind of player, such that they can press the action they want with less delay, then even if the macro loses some frames upon press, the result can be that the players action per minute improves.

However, there can also be the exact opposite result. A player could find macros confusing, could forget which 2 actions are bound to the same button, and thus macros could actually make their play worse, even if macros don't innately have any action loss.

Which is to say, for some people macros will improve play, for others it will hinder it.

What I've learned over and over again throughout the course of my life is that people have different capabilities. Each of us have different strengths and different weaknesses in a variety of areas, and because of that we have different experiences and different challenges. That's why instead of being prescriptive, I instead encourage everyone to give macros a try and see what the impact is. Then depending on their individual results, they can each decide to what degree — if any — they want to keep using macros.

[Rin_Sato]

The test is a demonstration of the data. It answers the question "do macros innately cause action loss".

You do not need a video to prove it.
Please refer to the following test method:

As the following is somewhat related to why macros aren't so great, please do the following for more insight.
Test a macro with the first 14 lines being '/macroerror off' followed by 1 line with '/echo test 1 <se.6>'.
Compare this to a macro with just '/echo test 2 <se.4>'.
Now mash each alternatingly and compare how many of each you get in chat (you will get no instances of test 1 unless you slow down to less than 2 presses a second or so).

[LilimoLimomo]

You do not need a video to prove it.
Please refer to the following test method:
As the following is somewhat related to why macros aren't so great, please do the following for more insight.
Test a macro with the first 14 lines being '/macroerror off' followed by 1 line with '/echo test 1 <se.6>'.
Compare this to a macro with just '/echo test 2 <se.4>'.
Now mash each alternatingly and compare how many of each you get in chat (you will get no instances of test 1 unless you slow down to less than 2 presses a second or so).

I'm genuinely unsure what you think you're demonstrating here. By mashing two macros alternately, each macro has the potential to interrupt both itself and the other macro; that's part of why in my first post I clearly recommend that macros not be mashed. Don't do that and you'll be fine.

As an aside, I've heard from others that /echo has some interesting timing behavior that differs from other macro commands such as /ac, though I haven't looked into it myself since I don't use /echo macros. I can't tell if that's part of what you're seeing since the mashing is obviously going to get in the way.

[Rin_Sato]

I'm genuinely unsure what you think you're demonstrating here. By mashing two macros alternately, each macro has the potential to interrupt both itself and the other macro; that's part of why in my first post I clearly recommend that macros not be mashed. Don't do that and you'll be fine.

As an aside, I've heard from others that /echo has some interesting timing behavior that differs from other macro commands such as /ac, though I haven't looked into it myself since I don't use /echo macros. I can't tell if that's part of what you're seeing since the mashing is obviously going to get in the way.

What is being demonstrated is that each line in a macro adds a delay.
By exacerbating the issue through adding duplicate lines the issue as well as my point is made more clear: macros add an inherent delay independent of GCD.
It doesn't take much reasoning past that to infer that they are (to an extent) going to cause a loss in GCD.

[LilimoLimomo]

What is being demonstrated is that each line in a macro adds a delay.

I explain this in my initial post: every single line of a macro runs in order, with one line running per frame. Depending on how we build our macro, this can either be a boon or a detriment, which is why it's important to understand how macros function so that you can lean into the strengths and avoid the pitfalls of the weaknesses.

By exacerbating the issue through adding duplicate lines the issue as well as my point is made more clear: macros add an inherent delay independent of GCD.

It's odd that you claim that duplicate lines are "exacerbating the issue" and "adding a delay", when they're providing desired functionality. If I'm getting what I want, that's not an issue.

It doesn't take much reasoning past that to infer that they are (to an extent) going to cause a loss in GCD.

I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but this reasoning is flawed because it fails to take into account the primary means by which GCD loss actually occurs in game: clipping. In FF14 we cast our skills and spells in chains by taking advantage of queuing, thus minimizing the delay between the GCD becoming available and the triggering of our next skill. Because of this, we can actually leverage what you're framing as a downside into a powerful tool that will allow us to avoid clipping.

But rather than trust an armchair theory, why not simply engage with hard data? Check out the video evidence I provided in my first post, and let me know if you can see a meaningful difference between in the GCD.

[Rin_Sato]

But rather than trust an armchair theory, why not simply engage with hard data? Check out the video evidence I provided in my first post, and let me know if you can see a meaningful difference between in the GCD.

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.
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.

Though, it is now apparent to me that you are likely baiting, so I'll offer my apologies for not realizing this sooner.

[Collin_Sky]

I must say, it does get frustrating to see misinformation threads like this get bumped up.

Op, or anyone else for that matter, do you have actual hard evidence for the claim that your gcd macros aren't costing you uses? Videos, logs, etc.? Because part of proposing a new theory is proving that theory via testing. Op, all you do is ask people to "try it and see." You provide data, but have no demonstration to back up said data.

Well, I'm now asking you to prove yourself. Share the macros you use, go into a simple fight, execute, and post the video here. I will HAPPILY comb through the video and tell you every instance in which you clipped, as well as let you know how many GCDs you lost. Please tell me if your video isn't 60 fps on your upload location, or let me know when you're done so I can provide a place for you to upload the raw footage.

Uploading to the magic number site will be a big plus. I'd be able to give you exact millisecond figures to go off of.

And, if you don't and you are somehow, magically, as gcd efficient as just hitting a normal button, then you can put that in the op AND I'll find a way to reward you for humoring me.

And no, the 30 second clip in the op doesn't count, even though I can see very clear and obvious clipping in it.

Edit: I have another caviot: if anyone does make a video, it is a REQUIREMENT to prove that you have no add-ons running. There are add-ons that impact how macros function (such as making 0.5 second wait timers work, which op mentioned very early on in the thread, hmmmmm). I feel it'd be disingenuous to say that macros can work when it's really an add-on making them work.

There's several ways to prove that there are none active, so go through a few of them before whichever fight you do.

I like how OP ignores this entire post except for the 2 parts which he has a very easily dismissive point to make despite asking players to try and disprove him and claiming to be open to it if people can.