56 replies to this topic

[Farix]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 July 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

If alpha with AC2s is so much better then macro-chain-fire why then everybody wants to macro-chain-fire eh? And AC2s recycle in 0.5 seconds... if you are so awesome you can torso twist side and back inside those 0.5 seconds, well ...

Alpha is better if there is lag or the player didn't time his macros timed correctly. But the AC2s are not putting out more damage with a macro than they are without one. It sounds cooler and looks scarier, but that is all it is. There is just no advantage to using a macro on the AC2s.

But rather than continuing the debate whether a macro increases DPS, why not run experiments in the Testing Grounds? I did one with the UAC/5 and it showed that a UAC/5 fired without a macro had a much higher DPS with the jams than one with a macro that nearly eliminated jams.

Edited by Farix, 14 July 2013 - 10:08 AM.

[Odins Fist]

blinkin, on 13 July 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

"MACROS"

They are just fine to use..

If you banned "MACROS" or indentified the hardware used for "MACROS" and then banned or kicked that player, then you would have to kick or ban every player that spent more than $25.00 to $30.00 for a gaming mouse, and most gaming mice today come with a small program for "MACROS" and multiple programmable buttons.

If you're playing MWO (or any other game) with an OEM $7.99 Logicrap mouse, then you're doing it wrong.

FYI: I don't currently use "MACROS", and haven't in MWO as of yet, I could setup 8 different weapons groups if I wanted, but currently need only 3 or 4 to run without needing "MACROS". I spent $30.00 on a mouse, fully programmable, "MACROS" if I need them.

[Oneirocide]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 July 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

And I DON'T have a problem with people who do that without a macro. But really ... how many of such people are out there? 10% vs 90% who use macros?

The real question here is, "why does anyone care if somebody is macroing their ACs?" We've already determined it confers almost no in-game advantage, other than looking cool and helping heat management a tiny little bit.

[PhoenixFire55]

Farix, on 14 July 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

There is just no advantage to using a macro on the AC2s.

If you really believe that then you've never fought against an x4-x6 AC2 mech.

[PhoenixFire55]

Oneirocide, on 14 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

We've already determined it confers almost no in-game advantage

We didn't.

[Farix]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

If you really believe that then you've never fought against an x4-x6 AC2 mech.

Then you are going to have to offer proof other than "I say so". Do simulations in the Training Grounds testing macro and non-macro AC/2s and post the results.

For example, here are my results after doing a test with an UAC/5 and 100 rounds of ammunition.

Firing 100 rounds with a macro took approximately 1 minutes 56 seconds with no jams. That gives the average DPS of 4.31. Slower than the theoretical DPS of 4.55.

Firing 100 rounds without a macro too approximately 1 minute 33 seconds with 11 jams. This gives the average DPS of 5.38. This is actually higher than an AC/20.

Conclusion, while a macro does prevent the UAC/5 from jamming during a critical situation, it does so at the cost of lowering the average DPS.

Edited by Farix, 14 July 2013 - 11:25 AM.

[King Arthur IV]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 July 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

If you really believe that then you've never fought against an x4-x6 AC2 mech.

PhoenixFire55, on 14 July 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

We didn't.

there is no dps advantage. there is no bug to increase fire rate. a macro ac2 still have 0.5 interval. the only thing that has changed is the sound effect and your fear to shoot back from the sound. if there was a bug that could increase fire rate or damage or less heat then yes that would be a problem but there isnt. you will chew through ammo faster with group fire then macro because there is no interval between the intervals.

[blinkin]

well this thread turned out a much more logical debate than i ever expected.

now that it has gone on for a while, i will throw down my opinions. (for those who don't already know)

the advantage macros give is small but they do allow for more tactics:
when fighting light mechs or something moving fast past you the high rate of fire translates to more hits in general, this is why most aircraft use machine guns that sound like a wet fart when fired and in general aircraft have always relied upon guns with a very high rate of fire for air to air combat.

macros also allow mechs to maximize different suppression effects from weapons by spreading them out over time. the suppression effects i am talking about are knock effects, explosion graphics, noise, and damage. all of those things can potentially disrupt the ability of the player to function and work best when spread out over time.
---------------------------------------------

i think that the different ROF macros should be worked into the game because the whole firing system in this game is designed around macros, specific weapon groups, chainfire, and the alpha strike key are all macros. other games simply separate all of the weapons out and each weapon gets it's own trigger. we are 90% of the way there and the in game macro system just needs to be finished.

i don't really hold it against the people that use macros, because the advantages are small, can be recreated reliably by players WITHOUT macros, and should already be in the game anyway.

Edited by blinkin, 14 July 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Farix, on 14 July 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Then you are going to have to offer proof other than "I say so". Do simulations in the Training Grounds testing macro and non-macro AC/2s and post the results.

It is NOT about DPS. It is about the fact that if you use normal fire you hit the target every 0.5 seconds. He gets his cockpit rocked every 0.5 seconds, and thus he has those 0.5 seconds to aim his shots. Now if you use macro-fire you hit him once every 0.125 (4 AC2s) or 0.083 (6 AC2s) seconds, leaving him no time whatsoever without cockpit shake. That IS an advantage when your enemy can't aim back at you. The effects of that screen shake can be different. On some systems screen just goes black due to some bugs or whatever and a person getting fired by AC2s can't see anything at all.

King Arthur IV, on 14 July 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

there is no dps advantage. there is no bug to increase fire rate. a macro ac2 still have 0.5 interval.

Read my post just above.

[King Arthur IV]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 July 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

It is NOT about DPS. It is about the fact that if you use normal fire you hit the target every 0.5 seconds. He gets his cockpit rocked every 0.5 seconds, and thus he has those 0.5 seconds to aim his shots. Now if you use macro-fire you hit him once every 0.125 (4 AC2s) or 0.083 (6 AC2s) seconds, leaving him no time whatsoever without cockpit shake. That IS an advantage when your enemy can't aim back at you. The effects of that screen shake can be different. On some systems screen just goes black due to some bugs or whatever and a person getting fired by AC2s can't see anything at all.



Read my post just above.

read my first post under op.
0.5 is not enough time to aim back, by the time you have aimed the next shot will rock your cockpit again. one ac2 alone will cause enough cockpit shake to stop you from aiming correctly. if one is enough, why would you need to further increase it at the cost of pin point damage? mayebe you want to spray at 4 mechs, then sure macro will allow you to spray and prey and rock them all.

a macro ac2 is so weak imo that i am happy to see them on the enemy team when i drop.

[Fire and Salt]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 July 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Everything that makes a competitive game easier for people using it over people who don't use it is cheating. Macro isn't any different from an aimbot. If it makes using AC2s, UAC5s, Tag whatever easier then it would have been without it then its a cheat.

FYI - I always use the tag laser on the thumb button of my mouse (except on my highlander where I for some reason like it on the let mouse button, LRMs on 2, and the torso LGLAS on the thumb button) - But anyways - Since I have tons of buttons, I have never needed a macro to "hold it down" for me. But what about someone who has a 3 button mouse? Are they gaining an unfair advantage over ME if they make the "Q" button on their keyboard toggle the laser, instead of having to hold the button? I say I am STILL at the advantage without the macro. They are constantly emitting a laser pointer that shows their location, where I easily turn it on and off as needed.


I think that PGI should implement the chain fire and no jam mechanic as game options, as well as "hold down" functionality for weapon groups (tag, etc.) and arm lock. See my post here:
http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry2555570



If these additions were implemented, macros would become an unarguably FAIR advantage - they would only aid people by giving them more buttons. And we DO allow people with 12 button mice to play the game. (Ex: You can use a macro to make your scroll wheel work - that's 2 free buttons! You can use a macro to make your mouse thumb button do an override and a coolant flush at the same time, Someone with 2 thumb buttons can just map one to each and mash their thumb and in fact have the greater advantage of being able to save their coolant flush in those cases where they are only at 102% heat and merely want to get back behind the hill before shutting down.)

[PhoenixFire55]

King Arthur IV, on 14 July 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

read my first post under op.
0.5 is not enough time to aim back

Not enough for some, more then enough for others.

[Dracol]

When running a trip AC/2 drsgon, I do the quick chain fire by utilizing my 3 button mouse. I have no issues with macro users since the technique can be accomplished without.

Now, if a macro allowed one to do something that could not be accomplished without one, then I would have issue. But as it is, you can setup the weapons group to achieve the same result with a little button pushing quickness.

[Mechteric]

I only need a macro for TAG and UAC5's. Its not necessary for normal AC5/AC2.

If the devs would make TAG toggleable, that would solve one necessity of macros.

If the devs would make UAC5 not jam when the fire button is held down, and only chance to jam when clicked again, that would solve the other necessity of macros.

[blinkin]

PhoenixFire55, on 15 July 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

Not enough for some, more then enough for others.

agreed. in heavy combat sometimes a half second is an excruciatingly long time.

me and my brother even made a joke about him spamming a button about 17 times in a half second during a brawl just yesterday.

[blinkin]

CapperDeluxe, on 15 July 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

I only need a macro for TAG and UAC5's. Its not necessary for normal AC5/AC2.

If the devs would make TAG toggleable, that would solve one necessity of macros.

If the devs would make UAC5 not jam when the fire button is held down, and only chance to jam when clicked again, that would solve the other necessity of macros.

necessary depends on what you goal is.

totally agree with tag being a toggle.

i like your third idea as well but i think it should be an option, because i like being able to just hold down the button for high rate of fire. i actually have a hunchback build that is designed around that functionality.

[PanzerMagier]

blinkin, on 15 July 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

necessary depends on what you goal is.

totally agree with tag being a toggle.

i like your third idea as well but i think it should be an option, because i like being able to just hold down the button for high rate of fire. i actually have a hunchback build that is designed around that functionality.

Quoted for great justice!

[Fire and Salt]

I honestly like tag NOT being a toggle - but I have plenty of mouse buttons and the laser effect makes me paranoid... Either way it would be a great option for the game to have.

[TekGnosis]

Hi,

I'm a macro guy. Yep, I admit it. I use them to program features that PGI might eventually get to if they get out of QA hell and have time to spend on features and not bug tracking in ... oh... about a year.... Until then... I use macros.

TAG toggle... Check. WHY isn't this in the UI? Seriously. I get a thumb cramp holding down button 4 otherwise. Even my $6 laser pointer has a 'constant on' slider...

UAC/5 no-jam... Check. I sacrifice dps/time for reliability. This NEEDS to be an option in the game UI, as the difference between jam/no jam is 100ms so I CAN'T use the built-in chain fire. No apologies, I'm fixing a bug here. Period. The fact this is significantly better than standard AC/5 in DPS (4.55) vs 3.33{3.49FF}) is because AC/5 is BROKEN not because UAC/5 is OP/Imba relative to it or other weapons. AC/5 should be 4dps(4.2FF) like all the other standard size AC. Note that FF unlock does not impact the 1100ms jam point on AUC/5 nor it's double-fire rate so is actually pre-nerfed as implemented currently.

AC/2 chain... Check. I use the chain fire, which does NOT provide better DPS or even significantly better screen shake honestly, because it slightly mitigates lag or 1/10th second off-target drift on my part 'dropping' a full 4-shot packet of shots off the target. The thing is it should absolutely be that chain fire behavior code, in the case of identical weapons, results in identical DPS to firing in group. This is trivial to program, I know because I did in under 10 minutes. Why PGI doesn't?... They are busy fixing bugs. Until then, I implement this feature myself.

How to handle chain fire rate for mixed weapon groups... I have NO IDEA how I'd program that, but does anyone actually try that anyway? The issue at hand is that people are gaining no DPS advantage, just convenience, from these macros. you'll note there are no other macros that are common, just these 3 main ones. Both should be mitigated from even being thought of by the gaming community by better game mechanics structure.

It is one of the responsibilities of a game designer to keep automation potential out of balance structure. I hold them to that, as I care about the game in the long-term. This is one reason why the 'boating' 'nerf' at 500ms is such a poor idea, it encourages macros by it's very nature and is therefore bad mechanics.

$.02

[xenoglyph]

TekGnosis, on 15 July 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

It is one of the responsibilities of a game designer to keep automation potential out of balance structure. I hold them to that, as I care about the game in the long-term. This is one reason why the 'boating' 'nerf' at 500ms is such a poor idea, it encourages macros by it's very nature and is therefore bad mechanics.

My thoughts exactly.