Dancer Archive
Thread: A little clarification for those who still can't see(recursive macro removal).
Page 1 of 2
Schardour
Thu Aug 05, 2004 1:11 pm
#1
I love the "for those who still can't see" in the title. It's interesting that many of these same people label Entertainers as "arrogant" for asserting their own views on the buffbot situation.
PhoenixStar
Thu Aug 05, 2004 1:29 pm
#2
Schardour wrote:
I love the "for those who still can't see" in the title. It's interesting that many of these same people label Entertainers as "arrogant" for asserting their own views on the buffbot situation.
For the 800th time I am a master dancer and I am now fully 100% ATK when buffing, so I'm not here to defend buff botting and I never was defending buff botting. I'm defending recursive macros and there's nothing wrong with that. If you allwant buff bots gone, fine, I'm going to try and find a way without screwing up something good in the process.
Wendelius
Thu Aug 05, 2004 1:51 pm
#3
Well that's OK then. Because recursive macros are not something good. They are just system abuse waiting to happen as has been demonstrated in the game. I agree 100% with Javier when he says that the real problem is unattended gameplay. But empirical evidence shows that that's tied to the use recursive macros.
And yes, if properly implemented, we will lose some functionality at the same time as unattended gameplay when they go, but we can work around that. We want the change to be good enough so that AFK'ers can't work around it. I'm surprised that you still can't see that (oh, and patronising thread titles are annoying).
And yes, if properly implemented, we will lose some functionality at the same time as unattended gameplay when they go, but we can work around that. We want the change to be good enough so that AFK'ers can't work around it. I'm surprised that you still can't see that (oh, and patronising thread titles are annoying).
kirah_ashlin
Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:01 pm
#4
Look, stop droning the same mantra, PS. . . you've made your point and I for one am tired of reading post after post why YOU think the removal of the recursive macro should not happen. In case you haven't figured it out - WE don't have any power here! Add your gripesto TH's thread and stop taking up space here just to reiterate ad infinitum-adnauseum your opposition to it. We get it - you oppose it! Enough already . . .
If there is a better way to get rid of the buffbots and unattended play - great! We didn't tell the dev's we wanted the recursive macro removed - that was THEIR decision. We simple want to save our profession from automatonic anilliation. Gripe to the right source, please!
BTW, being demeaning from the get-go doesn't help your case at all . . .
Sigrun
Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:10 pm
#5
Wendelius wrote:
Well that's OK then. Because recursive macros are not something good. They are just system abuse waiting to happen as has been demonstrated in the game. I agree 100% with Javier when he says that the real problem is unattended gameplay. But empirical evidence shows that that's tied to the use recursive macros.
And yes, if properly implemented, we will lose some functionality at the same time as unattended gameplay when they go, but we can work around that. We want the change to be good enough so that AFK'ers can't work around it. I'm surprised that you still can't see that (oh, and patronising thread titles are annoying).
You guys are pretty thick sometimes. Removing the ability for macros to loop will NOT remove unattended gameplay. People will start using 3rd party programs or the operating system itself to continue their AFK play.
Only the addition of an "anti-AFK" rule and then the subsequent enforcement of that rule will remove unattended gameplay. Of course, if they do remove macros, the still need to enforce the anti-3rd party rule (which probably doesn't apply to functions of the OS so that's moot) in order to "fix" the problem.
Thing is, they can implement an anti-AFK rule and the enforcement of the same WITHOUT CHANGING ONE LINE OF CODE IN MACROS.
CodeBreaker007
Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:33 pm
#6
You seriously think they are going to start making rules that you must not leave your pc while playing swg, god this forum gets worse..Heard it all now..
Tiaga
Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:50 pm
#7
CodeBreaker007 wrote:You seriously think they are going to start making rules that you must not leave your pc while playing swg, god this forum gets worse..Heard it all now..
No, I don't think that. I think the rule has been there since the beginning. They let it slide because they provided the tools. They are looking at taking the tools away.
Dreamland
Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:58 pm
#8
I think your post title should in fact read:
"A little clarification for those who still can't see it MY way."
Ravenmist
Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:08 pm
#9
If people switch to 3rd party programs and are caught using them they can be banned from the game. The result will be no more long term AFK players, and if someone is afk a long time and commands are still being issued to the game its going to make them easy to catch. The only way to AFK play will be to break the games rules, this is a great step for the game imo. If a little function of the macro system is lost, and I do mean very very little, then thats more then a fair price to pay to get rid of all the AFK idiots.
- Ravenmist
PhoenixStar
Thu Aug 05, 2004 4:23 pm
#10
kirah_ashlin wrote:
Look, stop droning the same mantra, PS. . . you've made your point and I for one am tired of reading post after post why YOU think the removal of the recursive macro should not happen. In case you haven't figured it out - WE don't have any power here! Add your gripesto TH's thread and stop taking up space here just to reiterate ad infinitum-adnauseum your opposition to it. We get it - you oppose it! Enough already . . .
If there is a better way to get rid of the buffbots and unattended play - great! We didn't tell the dev's we wanted the recursive macro removed - that was THEIR decision. We simple want to save our profession from automatonic anilliation. Gripe to the right source, please!
BTW, being demeaning from the get-go doesn't help your case at all . . .
Little girl I could really care less what you think of my posts if you don't like reading them then stop reading them, as long as I pay my monthly fee I have every right to post my opinions 8000 times in a row if I see fit. You obviously don't know how these forums work. When you read the title and saw my name next to it, you should've know from jump not to click the link. Next time let it register with your brain not to read my posts if you're tired of seeing them.
PhoenixStar
Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:07 am
#11
The reason this debate has grown so large is simply because this is not the way to go. If recursion can no longer occur in macros people will just create much longer macros that can still run for hours. That will then create yet another excuse for people to complain about afkers yet again, this time being that macros can be made too long(which people have already been saying before the first change has even gone through...). If macrosare made short then we're being severly limited by what we can do with them, I mean some people are saying no more than 100 lines. That's pretty limiting and has nothing to do with being afk as you can still go afk whenever you want and just hold a key down with something heavy,that's no real solution. Not to mention the fact that there's a great chance for the entire macro system to get screwed up in the process. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Pleasestop and think a little bit before jumping to flame and demand that this be the change to go in because the problem lies with people being able to go afk for very extended amounts of time, not with macros being able to loop. If you're ATK then looping a macro should not be a problem to anyone and the many advantages of havingthem will still be around.If we work together instead of arguing(yeah I said lets drop the crap and work together :smileyhappy
, we may be able to come up with a great idea that will work for everyone.
, we may be able to come up with a great idea that will work for everyone.As Tiaga stated in another idea that went afurther than my previous idea, there could be an auto-dump for people that have been afk for certain amount of time, an auto-kick could also be added on top of that so there wouldn't be an excess amount of afkers around for hours at a time. Disabling the option to turn auto-afk off would easily solve any attempts to cancel it out. Once auto-afk comes on a timer would be activated and you'd have to confirm a pop-up before the dump and kick would take place.
Opinions? Additions? Feel free. 
Tiaga
Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:14 am
#12
First thing is there's no need to connect it to auto-AFK, forcing the removal of that check-box. It can be a different timer.
Second thing is that no auto-kick is needed if macros are halted. The server already has an auto-kick, but it only kicks in if there were no commands from the client. Macros count as commands from the client.
Combine the two and disabling auto-AFK is detrimental to staying connected a little longer. Auto-AFK counts as a command from the client. This will encourage people not to disable auto-AFK if anything.
Second thing is that no auto-kick is needed if macros are halted. The server already has an auto-kick, but it only kicks in if there were no commands from the client. Macros count as commands from the client.
Combine the two and disabling auto-AFK is detrimental to staying connected a little longer. Auto-AFK counts as a command from the client. This will encourage people not to disable auto-AFK if anything.
picklesSW
Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:23 am
#13
I don't care what you do, what mechanism you add or take away from the game. I want unattended play gone from the game. That includes macrotainers, buffbots, AFK combat idiots, tumblers, hawkers, etc.
How that gets done, I don't care at all.
Lots of people are coming here to defend their buffbots, though, and that's where I draw the line.
How that gets done, I don't care at all.
Lots of people are coming here to defend their buffbots, though, and that's where I draw the line.
Page 1 of 2