Another request for additional macros.

[radioactive_lego]

Please implement a keystroke macro. Currently there is a way to bind a keystroke to a gamepad function, but not a way to bind a gamepad input to a keystroke. This increases keyboard functionality, but not gamepad functionality (where it is needed).
Suggest following macros:
/keystroke "i"
Executing this command would be equivalent to pressing "i" on the keyboard.
/ks "v"
Executing this would equate to pressing "v" on the keyboard.

This would add a truly remarkable amount of customization to the gamepad.

[Squintina]

I want this. (Though I have a feeling I know why they probably won't do it...)

[radioactive_lego]

I want this. (Though I have a feeling I know why they probably won't do it...)

Do tell! I can't think of a single con by implementing such a thing.

[Riepah]

Wouldn't that allow you to conveniently chain macros, which is something they don't want you to do?

[radioactive_lego]

The kb has no ability to chain macros on it's own. How does the controller gain this ability by adding kb functions?
A macro consisting of:
/ks "1"
/ks "4"

would be no different than:
/ac "action assigned to kb1"
/ac "action assigned to kb4"

in this scenario, if the two actions are spells (depending on condions) only one or the other will cast. it doesnt matter how much you spamm it, the same spell will be cast every time.

or, another example:
/ks "f1"
/ks "6"

same as:
/target <1>
/ac "Cure II"

These are already functions available; doesnt change anything.

Chaining macros only happens when you provide a syntax that recognises what has been already used and moves on to the next step automatically. We already know this doesn't occur since controller inputs are bindable to the k/b, and it hasn't happened.

The opens up the controller to all the functions the kb has, nothing else. Please provide examples, if i'm off base.

[Niwashi]

I'm curious what it would add. Most of the actions you can bind to a keystroke already have a macro command as well. Are there particular ones that are missing that you'd want? And if so, wouldn't it make more sense to just add those directly?

[Squintina]

Do tell! I can't think of a single con by implementing such a thing.

To prevent people from creating macro sequences by having macro one call key A, which has macro 2, which calls key B, which has macro 3, etc.. thus allowing people even longer macros for crafting and such.

[radioactive_lego]

To prevent people from creating macro sequences by having macro one call key A, which has macro 2, which calls key B, which has macro 3, etc.. thus allowing people even longer macros for crafting and such.

ahh. i see. hmmm.

the caviat would have to be that they would have to prevent or exclude /ks 0-9,-,+ (the hotbar buttons)

edit:
on second thought, there is really no difference between this and hotbar switching. press

[radioactive_lego]

I'm curious what it would add. Most of the actions you can bind to a keystroke already have a macro command as well. Are there particular ones that are missing that you'd want? And if so, wouldn't it make more sense to just add those directly?

many of the targeting keys, strafing keys, many system keys (notably "Cycle up/down through party list), cycle hotbars.

You make a valid point though. probably less work in adding more /commands than expanding gamepad functionality.

[Bixby]

the caviat would have to be that they would have to prevent or exclude /ks 0-9,-,+ (the hotbar buttons)

The hotbar keys can be reassigned. They'd have to make the exception based on what's actually bound to hotbar slots.

And then there's automating things outside of looping macros, too. /ks whatever your confirm button is, /ks down three times, /ks confirm <wait.3> /ks confirm <wait.3>.... one-click mining.

With all the tangles that'd go with it, I agree with Niwashi, it'd be better to just add macros for the functions that are missing.