Dismiss Notice
This Section is READ ONLY - All Posts Are Archived

Devs: Please define the meaning of "macros" properly

Discussion in 'Release 37 Feedback Forum' started by helm, Jan 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. evillego6

    evillego6 Avatar

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    43
    So a zero tolerance towards all macros?

    So this zero tolerance policy is not a zero tolerance policy because you will be deciding on which macros you determine to be harmful to the game?

    That is not a zero tolerance policy against macroing. You made conflicting policy statements in successive paragraphs. If you can't keep it straight, how do you expect players to?
     
    Kaisa, Alley Oop, Weins201 and 2 others like this.
  2. evillego6

    evillego6 Avatar

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The problem being, you may see that as harmful to the game, but Portalarium may not. Or, they may not today but may tomorrow. There's no definition to this policy at all. They've claimed both that they have a zero tolerance policy but also that the tolerance level needs to be vague so they have leeway to ban harmful macros. If it's a zero tolerance policy, all macros should be an offense. Except they aren't or maybe are depending on whatever paragraph of Starr's you are reading at the moment.
     
    Kaisa likes this.
  3. helm

    helm Avatar

    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Trophy Points:
    93
    @DarkStarr, thank you for the prompt and straight answer.

    But. I feel that you are now taking cover behind that "We got into trouble by saying we allowed "attended" macros" statement. Yeah, that policy was clearly doomed from the start, because any policy that uses vague concepts and vague definitions is prone to run into deep trouble sooner and later.

    So admit it was a mistake and move on, but please don't turn a blunder into a boulder, behind which to hide. Let me assure you that it's not a long term defensible position, at least not if you care about your gaming community.

    My primary concern is that you risk alienating especially the part of the community that relies on ergonomically motivated solutions to play the game at all. I sort of belong to that community, in the sense that I don't suffer from any ailments, but know very well which kinds of actions may bring them about, and some aspects of the SotA interface border on being unacceptable in this regard. I, among others, may very well be forced to leave the game because of this policy.

    Therefore, let me suggest an alternative policy (though not how to monitor or enforce it, that's a separate topic).

    Firstly, a deny-all policy is certainly a good starting point.

    Just to be clear for everyone, in a deny-all policy, everything that is not explicitly allowed is disallowed by default.

    Secondly, there needs to be well defined exceptions.

    Here's one simple exception to cover most legitimate needs:

    Macros that are:
    • non-repeating,
    • and static, and blind,
    • and execute in less than ten seconds,
    • and consist of at most five consecutive actions,
    are allowed.

    Where:
    Blind and static = macro does not get input from the game itself, and executes the same way every time
    Non-repeating = the macro does not run in any kind of loop, repeating the same thing over and over
    Action = pressing down or releasing a key or button, or pressing a key or button, or clicking or double-clicking somewhere on the screen, or typing a string of text

    This rules out all bots (because they are neither blind nor static) but allows most ergonomically motivated things, such as those mentioned in the OP, and those mentioned in the now locked announcement thread, linked in the OP. Also allows role-play related mannerisms, and typing in chat with often used phrases or speech recognition.

    I can't think of any good example of such a macro that would be "harmful to the game" in the sense that it would facilitate XP gain or gold farming in any significant way, or provide any significant advantage in combat. Also, "skipping or speeding up the client" would be possible only in minor ways, and only in cases where the client should probably be simplified anyway. The most glaring example of this need of simplification is the current crafting interface, where especially refining materials is just mind-numbing, repulsive, bore-to-death zombie action.

    I would invite everyone to try providing constructive counterexamples to the above exception. Does it cover all the bases? Does it leave significant loopholes?

    What do I mean by "constructive"? Quite many folks still appear to conflate concepts like "macro", "exploit", "hack" and "bot", or sometimes even use them totally interchangeably. Many don't seem to get into basic agreement about what is "harmful to the game" - some appear to even think that any kind of "macro" (even an ergonomically motivated one) is an "exploit"! In fact, name ANY action, "macroed" (what ever that means in here..) or not, and you'll probably find some guy firmly and loudly stating that it's totally unfair to other players (a couple of examples even in this thread). The scarcity mindset is not very constructive, IMO.

    Also as said above, defining a policy is different from monitoring or enforcing it. In this context, stating that "but it would be impossible to monitor!" is not a constructive argument.

    So please do not criticize just for the sake of it, but with the goal of testing out and improving the suggested policy exception, to help making a better game. Thanks.
     
  4. Brass Knuckles

    Brass Knuckles Avatar

    Messages:
    3,958
    Likes Received:
    7,707
    Trophy Points:
    153
    They need to remove the grey and just stick to all macros.

    However there is a valid point here, example: if u need 5000 iron ignots how many clicks/drags of the mouse is that?

    Dbl click the nodes, dbl the table, select the item and 5000 clicks of the mouse scaling up the stacks that you have to do 20 at a time.
     
  5. helm

    helm Avatar

    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Assuming 100% success rate, an indestructible tool, and all the materials and recipes at hand:
    • on average, 3 key presses or button clicks for every 10 ingots (=1500 keypresses/clicks for 5k ingots)
    • or, if a mouse double-click and key double-tap is counted as one, 1 click/press for every 5 ingots on average (=1000 keypresses/clicks for 5k ingots)
    "Stick to all macros" - what do you mean by that? How do you define a macro?
     
  6. Brass Knuckles

    Brass Knuckles Avatar

    Messages:
    3,958
    Likes Received:
    7,707
    Trophy Points:
    153
    How do u do that I can only add 1 item to a table stack at a time, it does not allow me to add 3 at a time. 1 stack is 1 ignot how do u get a full table out of 6 clicks where it takes me 20?

    I dbl click the table (2) click what im smelting (1) click the > arrow (20 times) click craft (1)

    20 ignots made (assuming no fails)
    24 mouse clicks + how many nodes for that ore to make 20 ignots (mabey 40-50) clicks.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  7. helm

    helm Avatar

    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Trophy Points:
    93
    (1) Double-click the recipe, (2) click the numeric stack counter, (3) double-tap "2" (will auto-adjust to 20), (4) click "Craft". If you count the double-clicks/taps in (1) and (3) as just one click/tap, you'll get the latter option.

    I disregarded the initial double-clicking of the crafting table because it needs to be done only once.

    "Stick to all macros" - what do you mean by that? How do you define a macro?
     
  8. Brass Knuckles

    Brass Knuckles Avatar

    Messages:
    3,958
    Likes Received:
    7,707
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Thats just it once you start breaking things into thats the ok vrs not ok macro things get muddied. A mouse macro combining a glyph or something inst a big deal but the ones that can stun lock and pick pocket a target I call cheating.

    So no macros and the player can decide if mouse buttons are a macro or if scripting is.

    Add systems to the game. Or ingame support for basic approved macros to reduce the pain of the current design of many of the systems such as the crafting example.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  9. Preachyr

    Preachyr Avatar

    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Um, no kidding you wont find a game that lists ALL specific macros that are or arent allowed, however ANY game that has a policy about suspensions and banning for macros will at least define what they consider to be a macro or what types are allowed or not. Only shady companies will have bannings and suspensions and hide behind intentionally vague concepts such as they are doing here.

    Is it really an advantage if I am casting the spells at the same speed that you can click on them? Maybe I just want to save my fingers by not having to do the extra 3 or 4 clicks every couple minutes. You can cast the same spells at the same speed or faster, you are just clicking more to do it.

    Is that an 'unfair advantage'? You may think so, others may think not.

    That's the whole point! I could be banned for something simple like trying to ease some of the games repititious clicking in a way that doesn't clearly afford me any advantage over anyone else. I just simply don't know what is considered to be a macro or not vrs just remapping keys or commands.

    I don't even have anything like the above set up for myself so its not like im just trying to defend some shady behaviour or anything. Its just that the principles here of having a policy which could involve bans and making it INTENTIONALLY vague is just incredibly wrong.
     
    Kaisa and helm like this.
  10. helm

    helm Avatar

    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Trophy Points:
    93
    But that's just the thing - in the current policy the player can NOT decide that, or even know if something might lead to banning. I provided several examples in the OP, none of which should be an offense by any rational standards. But there is just no way to know, under the vague zero-or-maybe-not-zero tolerance policy.

    Aye, this would be ideal, if implemented properly. So, checking back in 2019 perhaps? :p
     
    Fister Magee and Govenor Ruin like this.
  11. GrayFog

    GrayFog Avatar

    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    1,400
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Uhhh, then pretty much all companies are shady :D

    And the term zero-tolerance is pretty much always used.

    All you basically can do is something like this (taken from Square Enix): (obviously minus the RMT part since it is allowed here in SotA)

    Activities that Negatively Affect Game Balance

    Third-Party Programs or Tools. SQUARE ENIX strictly prohibits the use of third-party programs or tools – including programs and tools that permit automated or “absentee” play – in FINAL FANTASY XIV. Accordingly, the following activities are prohibited:
    · Modifying, analyzing, integrating, and/or reverse engineering game software or data.
    · Creating, distributing, using, or promoting utilities that interact with the game.
    · Exploiting SQUARE ENIX programming bugs or glitches.
    · Automating gameplay processes.

    During the course of an absentee play/automation investigation, SQUARE ENIX may request that players respond to or comply with certain instructions. Failure to do so may result in SQAURE ENIX taking disciplinary action against the account.

    Real Money Trading (“RMT”). RMT is the selling and buying of virtual assets for real-world money, property, or services. “Virtual assets” include, but are not limited to, the following:

    · Accounts
    · Characters
    · In-game currency (gil)
    · In-game services
    · In-game items or gift codes
    · In-game property

    SQUARE ENIX has a zero-tolerance policy for third-party tools and RMT. Items and gil obtained through third-party tools or RMT can affect the game’s economic stability and disrupt gameplay balance. Moreover, some third-party programs contain viruses and spyware that can harm players; this can lead to unauthorized disclosure of users’ personal data, character deletion, identity theft, and other unfortunate circumstances.





    Blizzard isn't any better.

    Cheating
    You are responsible for how you and your account are represented in the game world. Cheating in any fashion will result in immediate action. Using third-party programs to automate any facet of the game, exploiting bugs, or engaging in any activity that grants an unfair advantage is considered cheating.

    Exploiting other players is an equally serious offense. Scamming, account sharing, win-trading, and anything else that may degrade the gaming experience for other players will receive harsh penalties.

    If you're unsure if your actions violate this code of conduct, reconsider them. We reserve the right to restrict offending accounts as much as necessary to keep Blizzard games a fun experience for all players.






    shady companies everywhere :D
     
    uhop likes this.
  12. Duke William of Serenite

    Duke William of Serenite Avatar

    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    4,429
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Grunvald
    Gosh I really like the way the OP writes. Very clear and concise.
     
    Solazur and helm like this.
  13. LoneStranger

    LoneStranger Avatar

    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    4,761
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Petaluma, CA
    It's no different than an Agile programming method. You refine and iterate on the rules until you have a robust set.
     
  14. TarrNokk

    TarrNokk Avatar

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    I wonder, if you guys dislike the things you do in a GAME , why dont you waste your time with things, you have fun with and stop complaining.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  15. helm

    helm Avatar

    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    1,282
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Both examples are actually much better than "we are not going to allow any macros or botting of any kind" (direct quote from the announcement), given the refusal to even define what "macros" actually mean. A clarification such as "we are not just going to indiscriminately start banning people who are using multi-button mouses" does not clarify anything in this regard.

    SQUARE ENIX is especially clear about its policy, providing a four-point list (without any "including but not limited to" clause) about what is not permitted. For example, none of the four listed points concern any of the example cases I provided in the OP, the second item comes closest but it has the magic word "interact", so it does not apply to blind static macros (interaction is by definition a two-way street). Therefore it is clearly not zero tolerance towards all macros.

    Blizzard is slightly more vague in its policy but also emphasizes automating, exploiting and cheating.
     
    syxs and Preachyr like this.
  16. Crumpets

    Crumpets Avatar

    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Washington State
    LoneStranger, I understand the theory you are presenting and it is a valid way to do things. The problem in games with many players who each are going to think that their particular macro situation should be an exception and therefore a reason the developers need to look again, and refine again, detailed rules is that is going to be a non ending, emotionally fraught, time consuming headache. How much staff time and energy do you want tied up for someone to work through the macro complaint rule change request pile? As I posted earlier, it isn't because I don't share some of the game mechanic concerns/woes (watering!) that uses of macros would ease. Even if you personally felt you could outline what you felt were reasonable rules I can guarantee if you posted said rules there would be no consensus. Some would think your rules were not enough, some would think they were too much and we are off to the forum races again. I should also add that when I saw my own Neurologist for my wrist/hand/finger numbness symptoms he did not suggest that I go to my gaming companies and demand more ergonomically friendly game mechanics. He suggested that I keep in mind what stress I am adding to the problem with my chosen non-work activities and the amount of time I am doing them.
     
    helm likes this.
  17. Brass Knuckles

    Brass Knuckles Avatar

    Messages:
    3,958
    Likes Received:
    7,707
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Im not sure what your point is or if your trying to attack me so ill just give you a generic anwser.

    I like sota and would love for it to be a epic game, this is the test/feedback phase and I view all of us as testers and people who can provide feedback from thier points of view. Also we were sold on the ideas we can be apart of the development process early in the kickstarter.

    The devs can decide what if any opionions are valid and what ones are a waste of time.

    Im only on the fourms when im at work and unable to log in.

    I hope all of this was sastisfactory to your question/what ever it was.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  18. LoneStranger

    LoneStranger Avatar

    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    4,761
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Petaluma, CA
    It will never be perfect, and I don't think what I said says it will be. I'm saying that like any of the general game rules and balance decisions, the rules for exploits should continually be re-evaluated as new uses and new information is revealed.

    If the devs feel that establishing and evaluating rules is a headache, they're in the wrong business. :)
     
  19. Preachyr

    Preachyr Avatar

    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    Trophy Points:
    43

    .... This is exactly an example of the kind of thing I am saying that we need. It gives a clear list of things that are not allowed and what it consideres negative activities. Third party programs and tools, messing with game data, exploiting bugs and glitches, automating game processes..

    That is a policy that doesn't have to list every single specific macro but manages to at least list the TYPES of activites that it considers to be against the TOS. It is not intentionally vague and its not completely open to abuse and favoritism by the staff since it lays out clearly whats allowed and what isn't.

    So, i'm not entirely sure that i'm getting your point or your argument properly, maybe i'm misreading you but again I think this is a perfect example of how a policy needs to have at least some basic clarity especially when it could mean suspensions or banning for people.

    Again, to be clear, my main issue is not that I want to use macros or that i'm against a zero tolerance on the subject, my issue is that they refuse to lay out any basis for us to know whether we are breaking the rules or not. They are leaving it intentionally vague with the stated purpose of wanting to be able to have "complete freedom to enforce whatever macros are harming the game and not be limited by specifics."

    So zero tolerance for macros, but no clarification of what they consider to be macroing, and they want the ability to take it on a case by case basis (so not actually zero tolerance anyways).

    Look at the amount of times on the forums already that people think high level backers get special treatment or get listened to and responded to more often for other issues... now add the ability for the devs to pick and choose what players they enforce rules on and which ones they don't, in a system where no one actually knows the rules.

    How can anyone think this is a good policy decision for an online gaming community?
     
    Kaisa, helm, syxs and 1 other person like this.
  20. Brass Knuckles

    Brass Knuckles Avatar

    Messages:
    3,958
    Likes Received:
    7,707
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Aye, this is complicated macros even mouse ones can give a significant advantage yet also be used for common sence stuff. If they charged everyone a subscription fee and hired staff to constantly manage this thats one thing add in the fact this is a Rmt game and you can buy steam accounts for 19.99 = 1k silver ore there will be alot of people trying to figure out how to game this game and end up blowing it up with disposable accounts.

    Wiggle room is and has been dangerous just look at the simple statement ok for Attended macroing. And people did go nuts with it checking back every other hour or three.

    I dont know the solution but allowing any form of macroing will pull people to use it to the extreame unless its hard coded in the game somehow.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.