Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

[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.

[LilimoLimomo]

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.

Your refering to 1-minute of casting as "hardly 30 seconds of combat" doesn't exactly inspire confidence that you are approaching this in good faith. But let's talk in spite of that.

If you truly think that the video I provided was "armchair", my best guess is that you don't know what armchair means in this context. Which is fair enough, nobody knows every word. I'll just cut from Wikipedia to make it easy:

Armchair theorizing, also known as armchair philosophizing or armchair scholarship, is an approach to providing new developments in a field that does not involve primary research or data collection.

So what I did wasn't "armchair" by any stretch of the imagination, as I actually collected data.

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.

With respect, what you're proposing would make an exceedingly poor experiment. A good experiment aims to be as simple as possible so that it can reduce the likelihood of confounding variables. To engage in a full duty would add a ton of unnecessary confounding variables to the experiment.

And even a lay-person should be able to see why that is. Every time you complete a duty, you're going to do something at least slightly differently. You won't move into the exact same place at the exact same time, an ability might target you during one fight but not target you during the next, and of course, there's always human error. Which leads to the question of whether any differences were due to the thing you were trying to measure, or because of these other factors.

That's why a well-designed experiment will reduce the complexity of the the system being analyzed via strict control, to reduce the likelihood that the results are being impacted by multiple forces, which would make it more difficult to distinguish what the actual cause for any disparity was.

So if you want to determine whether macros innately result in action loss, then the experiment I've already done has a far more effective methodology than what you're suggesting.

[Rin_Sato]

Your refering to 1-minute of casting as "hardly 30 seconds of combat" doesn't exactly inspire confidence that you are approaching this in good faith. But let's talk in spite of that.

If you truly think that the video I provided was "armchair", my best guess is that you don't know what armchair means in this context. Which is fair enough, nobody knows every word. I'll just cut from Wikipedia to make it easy:

Armchair theorizing, also known as armchair philosophizing or armchair scholarship, is an approach to providing new developments in a field that does not involve primary research or data collection.

So what I did wasn't "armchair" by any stretch of the imagination, as I actually collected data.



With respect, what you're proposing would make an exceedingly poor experiment. A good experiment aims to be as simple as possible so that it can reduce the likelihood of confounding variables. To engage in a full duty would add a ton of unnecessary confounding variables to the experiment.

And even a lay-person should be able to see why that is. Every time you complete a duty, you're going to do something at least slightly differently. You won't move into the exact same place at the exact same time, an ability might target you during one fight but not target you during the next, and of course, there's always human error. Which leads to the question of whether any differences were due to the thing you were trying to measure, or because of these other factors.

That's why a well-designed experiment will reduce the complexity of the the system being analyzed via strict control, to reduce the likelihood that the results are being impacted by multiple forces, which would make it more difficult to distinguish what the actual cause for any disparity was.

So if you want to determine whether macros innately result in action loss, then the experiment I've already done has a far more effective methodology than what you're suggesting.

This is hilarious.

[Eyrilona]

This is hilarious.

You are trolling. The people you are attacking have provided every evidence and constructively reasoned and tested case we could ask for, and all you have done to continue claiming they are wrong, is ridicule and denial.