Evidence that Macros Do NOT Cause GCD Delay or Lost Casts

[Shurrikhan]

I like the idea of a macro system that can intelligently queue, but I don't think a macro system that only queues one action would truly solve this issue, because there would be cases where actions that are available when the queuing started are no longer available when the player is ready to cast an action, and vice versa.

That's why I mentioned the first actionable/possible action. Wrong target type (between PM/friendly/nonfriendly)? Target dead? Target out of range? It'd then check the next action macroed and use the highest of that list. Note that even regular actions do this, such that the range we can pull off an action from can be well above our actual "maximum range", given sufficient difference in position between when the action was checked and when it appeared to go off.

And again, the idea is simply to strike a balance between what behavior the devs want to forbid (e.g., auto-play or PvE combo consolidation... beyond the ones they already consolidated) and what they allow, un-neutering just whatever seems to be the intended uses of macros.

Yes, we can already use a Dia/Regen macro to make it so the button is of use regardless of target type, but we sacrifice queuing to do so. Given that we CAN do that through the macro with just a bit more timing or button-mashing, though, it seems well enough intended to be functional that the devs may as well let that be queued.

On the other hand, something like a <wait> macro using decimal seconds or %GCDs is not at all decently possible, while combo-in-1-button macros rely on the clunkiest of gimmicks and disused hotbars to draw from. As such, they seem wholly unintended, and so I wouldn't bother asking for what all would be necessary to make them function properly.

[LilimoLimomo]

Preliminary waitless lag testing complete, again using the "micon-error off-13x blizzard" macro. Not super comprehensive, but when I'm seeing no measurable additional delay over the standard queue in my initial simple worst-case test - 36fps @ >600ms (+270ms delay added to both sending + receiving packets) - I don't think there's a lot of merit to turning more dials for the sake of more complete but non-illuminatory data.

I'm mildly surprised, but I shouldn't be in retrospect - I already know the server gives the client an excessively long leash with what it considers valid with regards to ability casts and the GCD from the tools and exploits that exist in the wild.

Thanks for doing these tests and sharing the results with us!

My other concerns with more convoluted macros remain, as well as the dilemmas that can't be solved with data alone like the negative interactions with slidecasting and the fact that any double presses/mashing will bite you. Used correctly, you aren't likely to lose casts or suffer a GCD delay... but "used correctly" is a phrase doing some extremely heavy lifting there.

Haha, personally I wouldn't say "extremely", but yes, if a player uses macros incorrectly you can definitely shoot yourself in the foot. That's why my goal is to honestly present both the pros and cons of macros, so that players can decide whether macros could make things better for them or whether they would just be more of a chore. And on that note, this makes me realize that I should add "you can safely mash normal actions" to the list of benefits on the front page, so I'll do that right now.

[LilimoLimomo]

That's why I mentioned the first actionable/possible action. Wrong target type (between PM/friendly/nonfriendly)? Target dead? Target out of range? It'd then check the next action macroed and use the highest of that list. Note that even regular actions do this, such that the range we can pull off an action from can be well above our actual "maximum range", given sufficient difference in position between when the action was checked and when it appeared to go off.

Ah, I think I was thrown off because the way you initially described it before was:

"If they immediately checked through each action in series (top to bottom) up to the point where one is actionable per its parameters and queued just that first one"

If the action can actually be performed right now, then there would be no queuing, right? It would just do the action now? Let me know if I'm still misunderstanding you.

Yes, we can already use a Dia/Regen macro to make it so the button is of use regardless of target type, but we sacrifice queuing to do so. Given that we CAN do that through the macro with just a bit more timing or button-mashing, though, it seems well enough intended to be functional that the devs may as well let that be queued.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, that macro does have less of a "queue" window, especially depending on your system setup, so that is something you'd have to sacrifice. It would be nice if we could do it without that sacrifice though.

Also, it's probably worth noting that in the current system if you wanted to mash a macro like that, you would want to take the first two lines (/macroicon and /macroerror) and move them to the bottom of the macro instead of the top, because those lines run 1-per-frame like all the other lines, even though they aren't trying to cast actions. That will result in better performance.

Regardless of the nitty-gritty, I think you're right: if we can do these things with macros already, it would be nice if the implementation of macros were a bit more polished so that they didn't come with a handful of downsides.

[Themarvin]

Macroing everything and rotations, will slow you and cost you loss in DPS/HPS and more... it is a simple fact of extra added latency or one more step between hitting the actual button... and that is all that what you can say about that, also you often run into situations you can't macro yourself out as well.

So stop wasting your time making a long post about it... and there is limits as how you can do the timing.

The only way you can make these things instant is if you can map your hardware outside of the game, but you may run into certain conflicts like that, that wont be to your advantage upon discovery.

Edit:
Also the timing between steps... they will be there 0.2 second is 200ms and not even with a massive an insane good ping to the server, that I have that is like between 16 and 26ms would make me benefit from any macro at all that is resulting in heavy combat, you need to look upon how macros work, and how they are executed, and what delays you are forced to add for these scripts... it wont be in your favor, and if all you want to do is to justify using them yourself, then you may end getting kicked alot inside the game for not performing or playing the game well enough even in casual content.

An experienced player will take notice of fishy things and rule them out quite fast, by just taking note of the people am playing with and their jobs.

[Mikey_R]

When there are only two options, as in this case -- effectively, [A] or [Not-A] -- yes, they do. That is exactly what they mean.

In general yes, but not in the way it has been presented in the OP (bear in mind they also want to quash any misinformation). Let's go though the list:

Benefits of actions:
-Larger action queue window

Straight off the bat we are off to a bad start. The first is it implies the action queue length varies, it does not and that macros interact with the action queue system, which they do not. Considering actions are the standard, this point should be a disadvantage to macros in that they do not interact with the queue at all, however there are ways to mitigate this problem to be less of an issue.

-Macros are not one size fits all

Again, this isn't a benefit to actions, this is a downside to macros. You cannot just copy another macro from someone else and expect it to necessarily suit your needs, you will potentially need to adapt it to your personal play.

-You don't have to make a macro

Should this even need to be said? If you don't use macros, you don't need to macro. Brilliant insight /s. This isn't really an advantage/disadvantage.

-You shouldn't button mash macros

This should be, you cannot button mash macros with the explanation being that when you press a macro, it stops any previous macros completely and starts the new one. This, again, isn't a benefit of normal actions, this is a disadvantage of macros.

Just from the 'benefits' of normal actions, they list 3 things that mention the disadvantage of macros and fail to talk about the advantages of normal actions, the 2 main ones being interacting with the action queue and the extra flexibility it provides when needed.

Now, onto the benefits of macros:
-You can reduce button bloat

As I have previously stated, that entirely depends on what you class as button bloat and whether it is an issue with the job you are playing. Most would say a job like Summoner does not have button bloat (infact, many say the opposite) but a job like Paladin does have button bloat. I will still put it as a benefit.

-You can make single buttons that perform different actions depending on context

it should be highlighted that there is limited scope for context here. Having a macro that casts either Fire 3 or Blizzard 3 depending on whether you are in AF/UI is something that would be classed as contextual. However, the limited scope is not something that is bought up. In SOME contexts it can help, others it is useless.

-You can automate single weaves

Yes, but you lose the flexibility. You don't necessarily want to Swiftcast/Sharpcast/Triplecast every time you use a specific action, but again, this limitation is not highlighted.

-You can automate chains of actions

I will give credit and say the OP does specify that you will mess with GCD timings, however I would NOT list this as a benefit of using macros and instead list it as a limitation, or potential things to watch out for when making macros.

-Macros are code, so they can do other stuff, too

There is literally no point here, this is just something to pad out the list.

So, overall, for benefits of macros, we have 1 benefit, 2 cases of not giving the full picture, one that is listed as a benefit and should not be and 1 that is just padding.

So with everything laid out as it is, it is necessarily designed to completely obfuscate the actual information that is meant to be provided. All my argumentation in this whole thread has been to be completely transparent about benefits and limitations of the system so that someone can make an informed decision. This does mean, you do not need to list advantages/disadvantages of 'normal actions, however, you need to be clear in the advantages and disadvantages of using macros compared to 'normal actions'.

So, if I was making the list, it would be more along the lines of this:

Advantages:
-Ability to combine 2 buttons

Whilst this is possible, it is important to note there are limitations. 2 GCDs on one button, reduced flexibility etc.

-Limited contextual actions

You can choose to have Nascent Flash/Bloodwhetting on a single button as the usage is based on target, however, you cannot use context based on resources/buffs/debuffs.

-It can help people with disabilities

Whilst this isn't applicable to everyone, it can help some who want to enjoy the game and what it has to offer whilst still being able to play your job at a somewhat competent level.

Disadvantages:
-Does not engage with the action queue time

This is the system where you can press the action early and it will still go off, there are ways to mitigate this loss in the macros, but it is something to keep in mind

-Reduced Flexibility

You might not want an action to always be used when you use something else, for example always using Sharpcast after an UI Paradox or using Geirskogul whenever it is off of cooldown.

-Learning macros

Whilst it is not necessarily hard to make a basic macro, if it doesn't work for some reason, it might be hard to find why it doesn't.

I have massively condensed explanations for each point to save space and I'm likely to have missed some so they would need to be expanded on, however, that is the general layout that should be used. you can clearly see the advantages and disadvantages of using macros, instead of having to hunt through other bits of text. It might also be an idea to make another list of 'things to note' that aren't necessarily advantages or disadvantages, but something to be aware of, like the framerate affecting how quickly the macros go off.

In short, I generally have no issue with the post, it has shown some of the limitations of macros can be circumvented, what I generally have an issue with is how the information is displayed and conveyed. The OP has continued to try and obfuscate the downsides of macros and continue to push hat macros are good, when that shouldn't be the general message. They continue to obfuscate the disadvantages and continue to say things like 'macros have a shorter queue window', which is fundamentally false, they, by design do NOT queue at all, which can be classed as misinformation, which the OP hates, which then makes them a hypocrite. I could say more on that, but I'm not going to as it would be pure speculation.

[Deceptus]

No, this is what it's all about. This is what will make you drift. This is literally the exact reason why balance advises to not macro GCDs.

IMHO if you're not on the cutting edge of content, it doesn't matter.

Hell I've used rotational macros and still been near the top of the aggro (wink wink) in 8 mans / 24 mans.

In casual content it doesn't matter at all other than some elitist perception you have to have 100% uptime on GCDs and I'm not ashamed to say that. Sometimes if the boss is just a massive HP sponge, pushing a macro seems to be equal measures. If CBU3 can't design good encounters why should I put forth extra effort? If my team mates are slacking hard and we're still killing bosses, why should I put forth more effort?

Some days you just don't give a d@mn

Crafters use macros and no one shames them (they're commended) because they result in a win (craft HQ'd), why is there a stigma on DoW/DoM using macros to kill bosses?

[Shurrikhan]

In general yes, but not in the way it has been presented in the OP.

Fair enough. My point was more that such was an issue in framing, not to there being specific advantages to option A that were not disadvantages to Not-A or vice versa.

Macros's disadvantage in needing time to set up = Base Action's comparative advantage in NOT needing time to set up.
Macro's advantage in being further able to combine multiple actions into a single button = Base Action's comparative disadvantage in NOT being further able to combine multiple actions into a single button.
Macro's disadvantage in potentially needing individuation = Base Action's comparative advantage in NOT needing individuation.

So on and so forth.

If you attempt to declare a "default" option --such that not needing individuation or set-up time cannot be considered an "advantage"-- you're still ultimately comparing Macros to that default (which is just base actions anyways), changing nothing.

If I had to summarize his list more concisely and stuck to only what options aren't pretty heavily discouraged by macro's present limitations, it'd just be that "Macros allow one to set up alternate (and/or additional) actions within a single button press but sacrifice a broader queuing period (and/or weave efficiency) in doing so."

[Sindele]

In casual content it doesn't matter at all other than some elitist perception you have to have 100% uptime on GCDs and I'm not ashamed to say that.

[kaynide]

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I am curious.

I get that an optimal player will be better without macros, but is there a point where a bad player can play “good enough” with macros? And are certain jobs more receptive/forgiving of macro-use?

Like Ninja jitsu presses are much faster by hand, I would think. But putting oGCDs (like assassinate) on GCDs so they fire when the GCD isn’t ready yet is better than the bad player just not using the oGCDs at all… right?

[Saraide]

Crafters use macros and no one shames them (they're commended) because they result in a win (craft HQ'd), why is there a stigma on DoW/DoM using macros to kill bosses?

Crafters are only giving up their own time if they macro, while combat jobs are affecting everyone else in the instance. That's the obvious difference.