Perform: what are your initial thoughts?

[chrillix]

This wasn't what I was hoping for when SE decided to only give us one dungeon a patch to focus on new content >.>

[Canadane]

This wasn't what I was hoping for when SE decided to only give us one dungeon a patch to focus on new content >.>

Well other than Ultimate, what were you expecting?

[dotsforlife]

Works more or less the same way as the GW2 version (which I love).

As others have stated though latency will play a role in how well you perform (pun intended). That should go without saying.

The amount of buttons doesn't concern me, as you won't use but a portion of them at any given time for most songs you want to play. What does concern me though is the lack additional hotbars not added to accommodate this new feature. I know PC players in particular tend to use quite a few extra hotbars because of ease and KB/M making that efficient.

The lack of macros is negligible, as this type of feature is typically intended to be a manual thing anyways. You can just use a third party program if you wanted to automate it. I'd imagine SE would adopt the same view to it the way ANET did for theirs. I mean if they'll look the other way when it comes to parsers this should be fine as well, so long as that's the only thing you use it for. Just don't expect them to make an official statement one way or the other.

It would be nice if they either gave Perform its own set of hotbars or simply added more total.
Also, add some sound settings in the menu.

[Spirlia]

The lack of macros is negligible, as this type of feature is typically intended to be a manual thing anyways.

I disagree, because making macros is like making sheet music. Plus with the <wait> command, you would be able to manually create rests and time. Then, if everyone had matching sheet music, you could easily make a chamber group without worrying about latency.

[dotsforlife]

I disagree, because making macros is like making sheet music. Plus with the <wait> command, you would be able to manually create rests and time. Then, if everyone had matching sheet music, you could easily make a chamber group without worrying about latency.

Latency remains in effect regardless of macros. There's no getting around that unless you have some ungodly low ping to the servers. From the few games that support this type of feature, you have to have pretty low ping to make use of a macro, be it third party or not, in order for it to work well. If you had say, 20ms or less ping, you could probably get away with using macros reliably, but we all know that's a very small portion of ffxiv players.

[Jijifli]

Latency remains in effect regardless of macros. There's no getting around that unless you have some ungodly low ping to the servers. From the few games that support this type of feature, you have to have pretty low ping to make use of a macro, be it third party or not, in order for it to work well. If you had say, 20ms or less ping, you could probably get away with using macros reliably, but we all know that's a very small portion of ffxiv players.

It'd take into account human differences if a group wants to play the same song together.

Sometimes we tap differently in speed.

[dotsforlife]

It'd take into account human differences if a group wants to play the same song together.

Sometimes we tap differently in speed.

Agreed but that isn't what we're talking about here. We are referring to macros, which are automated and "human differences" have no impact on.

[Ashewalker]

New one i made just now.

https://youtu.be/Ti6fOWzM1r0

From a FF that almost no one played^^

[Flaris]

I disagree, because making macros is like making sheet music. Plus with the <wait> command, you would be able to manually create rests and time. Then, if everyone had matching sheet music, you could easily make a chamber group without worrying about latency.

You've obviously never composed. Making a macro and writing a piece of music are worlds apart, so I don't know where you got that idea. This performance feature is way too limiting and rigid for any real music to be made. No polyphonics, no chords, and you can't even subdivide.

Also not a fan that we can't mute all bards.

[Spirlia]

You've obviously never composed. Making a macro and writing a piece of music are worlds apart, so I don't know where you got that idea. This performance feature is way too limiting and rigid for any real music to be made. No polyphonics, no chords, and you can't even subdivide.

Also not a fan that we can't mute all bards.

I definitely have composed music, sorry to burst your bubble. What I'm trying to say is that you could write up "sheet music" made out of macros, people could copy them into their own macros, and play it without having to practice and perform the music.

/performanceaction "E" <wait.1>
/performanceaction "D" <wait.1>
/performanceaction "C" <wait.3>
/performanceaction "E" <wait.1>
/performanceaction "D" <wait.1>
/performanceaction "C" <wait.1>

....For example. Ta-dah! Now anyone can play Hot Cross Buns.

Obviously it's limited, but with some macros a group of people could more easily play complex music.