138 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Hexenhammer, on 31 July 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

That's my point. Something is borked.

It started last patch and this patch made it even worse.

Something does sound odd... I think they might be counting each fire of the AC2 as a separate weapon, instead of the same weapon shooting more often. What is the fire limit before being penalized with AC2s anyway?

And I still feel, even if it isn't overly effective, that if they wish to continue to permit Macro use that they announce and try to place the mechanic into the game itself. You shouldn't have to use a run around or special program if the ability to do so is considered alright.

(PS: Looking at your data, you actually seem to be able to squeeze off a few more rounds with a Macro than with the work around gimmick before overheating, but you clearly proved that group fired is still better. At least at this moment with the current patch.)

[MyszTrap]

Why do we even still have the AC5 as a weapon choice? With Macros the UAC5 out classes it by far... set a macro with something like a 1100ms delay so it will never jam, and still fires literally twice as fast as a AC5 with the advantage if you get into one of those situations where your most likely going to die... you can spam your UAC5 and if the random number gods smile on you, you might pump out enough damage to save your skin, or Jam on the first shot.

Seems broken if you ask me ....

[KAT Ayanami]

Using Macros is cheating people!

No human is capable of firing as fast and precise, non-stop, as a macro. Period.

You can try, but you will NOT be able to get to that level.


Want another example for MWO? Aimbots!

I think we all agree that Aimbots are cheater devices because they shoot every shot to the head. No human is capable of doing that either.

You can try, but there is no way that you will make every shot.


Its the same as using steroids. They give you an unfair advantage to do what other people struggle to do.

Honestly, thinking that macros is not an unfair advantage is just dumb.

[Mystere]

KAT Ayanami, on 31 July 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Using Macros is cheating people!

As mentioned before so many times, PGI allows the use of macros. End of story.

[Tesunie]

KAT Ayanami, on 31 July 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Using Macros is cheating people!

No human is capable of firing as fast and precise, non-stop, as a macro. Period.

You can try, but you will NOT be able to get to that level.


Want another example for MWO? Aimbots!

I think we all agree that Aimbots are cheater devices because they shoot every shot to the head. No human is capable of doing that either.

You can try, but there is no way that you will make every shot.


Its the same as using steroids. They give you an unfair advantage to do what other people struggle to do.

Honestly, thinking that macros is not an unfair advantage is just dumb.

I can agree with the feeling behind this, but PGI said it's okay.

Personally, the people from this thread have changed my opinion to a little lower than yours ("it's not quite cheating, but it's close" was my original opinion) and made it into, "If it's going to be permitted, then it should be added into the game (even announced that it's coming would be nice) so everyone can easily use it."

However, PGI's heat penalty has kicked in a very strange way and has made macros kinda... redundant. With the exception of UAC5s still, anything else I could think of for a Macro to be used for is kinda... useless. The main topic (or at least half of it) is now considered null and void. It just doesn't matter, unless the heat penalties are working in an unintended way and change of course.


Edit: For Grammar. I really need to see what I'm typing before I post!

Edited by Tesunie, 31 July 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[PanzerMagier]

KAT Ayanami, on 31 July 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Using Macros is cheating people!

Using surround sound is cheating people!

Using high end computers for smooth performance is cheating people!

Using high DPI mouse with multiple monitors is cheating people!

Using your brain is cheating people!


I could chuckle at this for hours...

Edited by PanzerMagier, 31 July 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[Tesunie]

PanzerMagier, on 31 July 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Using surround sound is cheating people!

Using high end computers for smooth performance is cheating people!

Using high DPI mouse with multiple monitors is cheating people!

Using your brain is cheating people!


I could chuckle at this for hours...

Though your points are funny and true... I can see his point of view. Some people (I'm kinda in that group, kinda not) feel that if any part of a game that should be controlled by a player (and is by most players) is controlled by a computer program, that it is a form of cheating. If a computer controls your movement, it's cheating. If a computer controls your aim, that's cheating. If a computer controlled when to press Override for you, that (probably) is cheating. See where some of us get our feeling for Macros from? As I said, I'm borderline into the group, and I was borderline on Macros. A Macro is a computer program (in this case) controlling when and how often you shoot.

A Macro (depending upon the type) can also have a programed sequence of key hits happen when you hit a button. This can be useful for sending out a premade series of messages in the chat system. Useful, but not cheating. That, among other things.

Determining what is and isn't cheating is... a murky business. Sometimes it's clear (a program that gives you perfect aim is cheating). Sometimes it isn't (with a click of a button, the Macro sends out a predetermined message of "Getting Epsilon"). What each person considers to be cheating is different. There is a reason I was asking for opinions on the subject, as I didn't think it felt right, but I didn't want to call it cheating either. It was... murky...

Edited by Tesunie, 31 July 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[MadcatX]

The way I see it, there's a line between what can be considered "giving an advantage" and what is blatant cheating. This is defined by how much of an advantage "insert exploit" provides a player. Using a macro provides a bit of an advantage, whereas on the other end of the spectrum aimbots provide a groundbreaking advantage.

IMO, the biggest thing outside the game that provides an advantage and is most definitely not cheating is VoiP (teamspeak) for premades.

[Tesunie]

MadcatX, on 31 July 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

The way I see it, there's a line between what can be considered "giving an advantage" and what is blatant cheating. This is defined by how much of an advantage "insert exploit" provides a player. Using a macro provides a bit of an advantage, whereas on the other end of the spectrum aimbots provide a groundbreaking advantage.

IMO, the biggest thing outside the game that provides an advantage and is most definitely not cheating is VoiP (teamspeak) for premades.

I don't mind the VoiP, as it's an intended feature in the game, that just isn't here yet. (Actually, if I heard right, VoiP was in the game at one point, but lagged it down so much the removed it to rework with with less lag. I could be mistaken as I wasn't around in closed beta.)

The rest, I kinda am in that boat. It sometimes is hard to determine if something is a cheat or not. Does it benefit too much and is a cheat, or just a small aid that makes it okay? So hard to tell sometimes...

[KAT Ayanami]

PanzerMagier, on 31 July 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Using surround sound is cheating people!

Using high end computers for smooth performance is cheating people!

Using high DPI mouse with multiple monitors is cheating people!

Using your brain is cheating people!


I could chuckle at this for hours...

No wonder you would chuckle at your post... because it makes no sense.

Using Hi-End SOUND, PC and SOUND is not cheating. Its having more funds for better equipment.


If compared to the racing scene.

If you have more money, you have better tires.
But that does not mean that you can have a steering wheel that turns for you, or brakes that are applied to their threshold for you.


That is what a Macro does for you. It manages your shooting to the maximum rate when you should be doing that yourself.


Now, about the comment about having a better BRAIN? Well, that is part of having skill, which is what actually should differentiate players.

Dont you think?


Like many players are saying here. PGI should either put macros for everyone, or disable them for all (if thats even possible).
But having only a few sporting them is cheating.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Your computer does control part of the game, but all that information goes to a server that PGI controls. Using an Aimbot or another program that breaks into that server is (in PGI's eyes) in fact cheating. Anything that stays on our side (IE Macros) which send into to those servers but do not break into the servers themselves, PGI states is not cheating.

[HammerSwarm]

The problem isn't the people, it's the game.

What people want, a fire mode that isn't all or one at a time. How they got this? third party macro program. So instead of saying, NERRR NOOOO! how about you slow down cheif and think of the problem in the terms of, what are the incentives.

One, staggering fire reduces heat
Two, staggering fire increases effectiveness

Why out of game macros? Because the game isn't doing this for them, because select fire may as well be called slow fire.

A for instance my DGN-5N with tri AC/2 I want to chain fire them to act more like a really awesome 12 DPS machine gun. This will do both things mentioned above. When I put on select fire It fires, cools down, fires the next, cools down, fires the next, cools down, repeats. This is terrible in comparison to firing all of them, or using an out of game macro program. I haven't found a good macro program I like that works with MWO while not being a pain to use, so I just fire all 3 at once and am dissatisfied every time I pilot that mech.

Don't make people who want something that is not available have a bad experience, make the in game experience more like what people want. THE END.

Addendum. In UI 2.0 with engine changes they could fix select fire by allowing players to set the delay between weapons in a group firing or to just do this for them in an intuitive manner where applicable.

Edited by HammerSwarm, 01 August 2013 - 09:11 AM.

[Tesunie]

KuruptU4Fun, on 01 August 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

Your computer does control part of the game, but all that information goes to a server that PGI controls. Using an Aimbot or another program that breaks into that server is (in PGI's eyes) in fact cheating. Anything that stays on our side (IE Macros) which send into to those servers but do not break into the servers themselves, PGI states is not cheating.

I hate to break it to you, but a movement bot could move your mech in "standard" movements after reading incoming data about what map you are on. (Movement bots always confused me. They acted like the NPC enemies in the older games, and thus was always real easy to counter and kill.) An aim bot, I don't know, but I'm sure someone would create one that doesn't "hack" into the MWO serves, and instead could just read incoming data and determine where to point the guns. So, you can cheat and have cheating programs without "breaking into the PGI server".

Anyway, PGI has stated it's not cheating, and I respect that. All I'm asking, as others have said, is if they want to allow it into the game, then make it part of the game. I think if it's part of the game then no one can say it's any form of cheating. It'd be using a tool within the game then. Feelings and problems solved.

Edited by Tesunie, 01 August 2013 - 04:30 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Ok Tesunie, since you and I finally both agree. Let's let this thread die. In the hopes that someone else will search for a Macros are cheating thread before posting another one in futility!

[Tesunie]

KuruptU4Fun, on 01 August 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Ok Tesunie, since you and I finally both agree. Let's let this thread die. In the hopes that someone else will search for a Macros are cheating thread before posting another one in futility!

Once we got past the misunderstanding of math, yeah. I think we do agree now.

And, I've been waiting for people to stop posting in the thread. I thought it was solved once it was posted that Macro fired AC2s ended up overheating way too fast for no reason. Kinda made 90% of the debate a little... pointless. UACs are still effected, so I still feel it should be added into the game if it's being permitted, but it isn't nearly as useful as it once was. Not being as useful means... it's less of an issue than it was before...

[Fais]

So I was playing with my 3XAC/5 1XAC/2 Jager the other night. I had a great match where people didnt focus on me and I ended up doing 1017 damage. The problem is that I only had 4 tons of AC/5 ammo (600 damage worth), and 2 Tons of AC/2 ammo (300 damage worth). I should have only been able to do 900 damage maximum. When the match was over I still had 11 rounds of AC/2 ammo. The AC/5 ammo was completly depleted. I did have an AMS with 1 ton of ammo. Also consider I probalby didnt hit every shot. I usually chain fire my AC/5's and then rapid fire my AC'2 on another mouse button with them alternateing. I did notice that match that I had a long period where my AC/2 was firing very close to the time the AC'5's were firing (a split second apart). Either AMS damage is getting counted, or I encountered some hitbox bug. Or maybe the OP was on too something and if you fire weapons very close in timing to each other do they get counted double? I havent had time to test it, but someone should try. Get a Quad AC'2 and fire the guns .01 seconds apart with a macro and see how much damage is done given a certain amount of ammo.

[Tesunie]

Fais, on 02 August 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

So I was playing with my 3XAC/5 1XAC/2 Jager the other night. I had a great match where people didnt focus on me and I ended up doing 1017 damage. The problem is that I only had 4 tons of AC/5 ammo (600 damage worth), and 2 Tons of AC/2 ammo (300 damage worth). I should have only been able to do 900 damage maximum. When the match was over I still had 11 rounds of AC/2 ammo. The AC/5 ammo was completly depleted. I did have an AMS with 1 ton of ammo. Also consider I probalby didnt hit every shot. I usually chain fire my AC/5's and then rapid fire my AC'2 on another mouse button with them alternateing. I did notice that match that I had a long period where my AC/2 was firing very close to the time the AC'5's were firing (a split second apart). Either AMS damage is getting counted, or I encountered some hitbox bug. Or maybe the OP was on too something and if you fire weapons very close in timing to each other do they get counted double? I havent had time to test it, but someone should try. Get a Quad AC'2 and fire the guns .01 seconds apart with a macro and see how much damage is done given a certain amount of ammo.

Though if you are right about what could have happened as a glitch would explain my Jenner incident I had when taking damage from a Macro 5x AC2 Jager, I'm more so guessing you got someone's ammo. Ammo explosions you cause (last I knew) also count as damage you caused. A single ammo explosion can give people damage of well over 1000 on the end of match results.

Beyond that, and/or if I'm wrong, don't know.

[Fais]

Oh i didnt know we got credit for ammo explosions. That would make alot of sense since that build can cause alot of those.

[Tesunie]

Fais, on 02 August 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Oh i didnt know we got credit for ammo explosions. That would make alot of sense since that build can cause alot of those.

Last I knew, you did get credit for ammo explosions you cause. So that was probably more so what happened. I could be wrong and they might have changed it in a patch, but I don't think they did.