170 réponses à ce sujet

[aimlessgun]

Iodine wrote...
Being able to click 8 times per second in short bursts doesn't mean you should be able to turn your Mattock into a super-powerful machine gun using a 12-16 clicks-per-second macro all the time. Maintaining accuracy while clicking faster is self-limiting when playing as intended - you may be able to manage 12 clicks per second physically, but you're not going to be able to keep the gun centered on the head of a moving target at the same time reliably. Automate the clicking with a macro, and suddenly you can aim as well as any aimbot while still firing at inhuman rates. Allowed/not prevented does not mean intended.

Operating a Mattock only requires 7.5 clicks per second to hit the maximum fire rate. And coming from someone who has checked out a firing macro, I'm actually more accurate when I have to click every time. 

The only gun that requires superhuman clicking is a Raptor operating by a Turian soldier. Anything else is likely just saving you finger strain. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 29 mars 2012 - 03:36 .

[Zzinged]

Sabbatine wrote...

Because at that point you're not really playing the game anymore.  If players could warp you to the end of the match during the first wave for full credits would you advocate it?  It's just a co-op game after all.

If you don't want to play the game, don't play it...  the weapons are the way they are for a reason.

Going from a macro that saves you from having to hit LMB rapidly for every shot to 'not playing the game' is several orders of magnitude apart. They're completely different things, unless the whole game is about clicking faster than other people. 

I'm wearing cleats while walking my slippery slope but thanks for being concerned. 

[Sabbatine]

Zzinged wrote...

Going from a macro that saves you from having to hit LMB rapidly for every shot to 'not playing the game' is several orders of magnitude apart. They're completely different things, unless the whole game is about clicking faster than other people. 

I'm wearing cleats while walking my slippery slope but thanks for being concerned. 

No, they are not several orders of magnitude apart.

As I said before, weapons are the way they are for a reason. Bioware is frequently balancing them by adjusting weapon stats to address weapons that are too strong or too weak.  Macroing something like this isn't very different from choosing to increase add a flat percentage damage boost to weapons you personally think are weak.

There are already plenty of weapons in the game that can be fired on full auto by holding the mouse button down, macroing a semi-automatic rifle to do this unbalances the weapon.

[ZephyrAM]

My basic point is this...

If semi-auto guns were meant to be auto fired, then they would've been 'made' full auto. By using a script to make them fully automatic weapons, you're essentially redesigning what Bioware created and intended for the game.

Argue the point all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it was never intended to be possible to reach max rate of fire for the Raptor while running Marksman.

And now you're doing it anyway. Keep this up and BW may well just go ahead and nerf the semi-auto guns to be equal to their full auto counterparts. And then we all lose.


Edit: Which I now realize after the fact is pretty much what Sabbatine is saying as well.

Modifié par ZephyrAM, 29 mars 2012 - 08:46 .

[aimlessgun]

Sabbatine wrote...
Macroing something like this isn't very different from choosing to increase add a flat percentage damage boost to weapons you personally think are weak.

Uh, no. 

The only gun that gets a fire rate increase from macros is a Marksman Raptor (or maybe a Predator). Everything else a human can handle just fine. And like I said earlier, manually clicking actually improves my aim with the Mattock. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 29 mars 2012 - 08:47 .

[Sabbatine]

aimlessgun wrote...

Sabbatine wrote...
Macroing something like this isn't very different from choosing to increase add a flat percentage damage boost to weapons you personally think are weak.

Uh, no. 

The only gun that gets a fire rate increase from macros is a Marksman Raptor (or maybe a Predator). Everything else a human can handle just fine. And like I said earlier, manually clicking actually improves my aim with the Mattock. 

I didn't say the problem with the macros was an increase in rate of fire.  The problem with the macros is the player is changing the way the weapon was intended to function.  You cannot differentiate between these changes and claim one is cheating but another is simply making the game more accessible to someone.

As for your aim, that is only the case because that is what you are used to.  Clicking and holding the button allows you to aim with less interference from the clicking motion.  If you took the time to re-learn to shoot a weapon with one of these macros you would see an accuracy increase.

If we apply this flimsy logic to another weapon and set of stats we could make the case for increasing the damage for the predator by 600% so long as we also adjust the fire rate so its sustained dps doesn't go up.  You could claim that such a change wouldn't be cheating because the weapon's sustained dps didn't go up but that would be a hollow claim.

[KarmaZ]

Weird, I tried using fully automatic Raptor with marksman, fire rate is not increased, I don't see any fire rate improvements, while Mattock and Predator works.
Why?

[Zzinged]

Sabbatine wrote...
No, they are not several orders of magnitude apart.

As I said before, weapons are the way they are for a reason. Bioware is frequently balancing them by adjusting weapon stats to address weapons that are too strong or too weak.  Macroing something like this isn't very different from choosing to increase add a flat percentage damage boost to weapons you personally think are weak.

There are already plenty of weapons in the game that can be fired on full auto by holding the mouse button down, macroing a semi-automatic rifle to do this unbalances the weapon.

Perhaps then you should define the term 'macro' as it pertains to cheating. If I am perfectly capable of clicking the mouse button x times per second, would it be cheating if I made a macro that would let me do that same feat at the press of a button? Is it cheating simply because I am not physically clicking the mouse button at a rate that I'm capable of? How can you say it corrupts the spirit of the game if the difference solely affects the player using the macro?

Calling someone a cheater because they use a macro to get around repetitive tasks sounds rather puritan. What if Bioware made it an in-game feature? Would it become accepted then simply because BW put it in their code? 

[Sabbatine]

Zzinged wrote...

Perhaps then you should define the term 'macro' as it pertains to cheating. If I am perfectly capable of clicking the mouse button x times per second, would it be cheating if I made a macro that would let me do that same feat at the press of a button? Is it cheating simply because I am not physically clicking the mouse button at a rate that I'm capable of? How can you say it corrupts the spirit of the game if the difference solely affects the player using the macro?

Calling someone a cheater because they use a macro to get around repetitive tasks sounds rather puritan. What if Bioware made it an in-game feature? Would it become accepted then simply because BW put it in their code? 

If an olympic athlete is capable of running 100 meters in 10.5 seconds is it cheating for them to build a robot that runs at that speed to stand in for them?

If you do not want to be burdened with repeatedly pulling the trigger I would suggest switching to the one of the ten or so fully automatic weapons available to choose from.

If Bioware made it an in game feature then it would not be cheating.  Bioware however will not make it a game feature because a significant portion of the weapons can already be used in this way and they want to promote weapon diversity, not give players more tools to make them all feel the same.

[Zzinged]

Sabbatine wrote...

If an olympic athlete is capable of running 100 meters in 10.5 seconds is it cheating for them to build a robot that runs at that speed to stand in for them?

If you do not want to be burdened with repeatedly pulling the trigger I would suggest switching to the one of the ten or so fully automatic weapons available to choose from.

If Bioware made it an in game feature then it would not be cheating.  Bioware however will not make it a game feature because a significant portion of the weapons can already be used in this way and they want to promote weapon diversity, not give players more tools to make them all feel the same.

I apologise if I come across as brief, but this is the 3rd time I've had to type this out due to the forums being weird. I'll get straight to the point.

Your example is fallacious. You used a competitive event in your example, and ME3's MP is clearly not that. The 100m sprint rewards based on an athlete's prowess. ME3's MP rewards everyone equally regardless of contribution.

Regarding you response that it would be ok if Bioware puts it in the game, I have a few points to raise.

You said, 'Macroing something like this isn't very different from choosing to increase add a flat percentage damage boost to weapons you personally think are weak.'  and, 'If Bioware made [macros] an in game feature then it would not be cheating.'

Two things. One, does that still apply if Bioware made an optional feature that allows one single mouse press to trigger continous rapid LMB inputs? That's what a macro does. You press a button once and the software keeps feeding the game simulated button presses (at a rate you can set) until you tell it to stop. 

Two, as aimlessgun correctly pointed out the only weapons that would benefit from having a macro would be the Raptor and the Mattock, and only then, when used together with the +fire rate evolution of Marksman. If, for example, you made a macro to simulate 10 clicks per second and used it with the carnifex, you would not get any damage boost. So no, macroing is quite different from applying a flat percentage damage boost to a weapon someone thinks is weak

You also said, 'The problem with the macros is the player is changing the way the weapon was intended to function.  You cannot differentiate between these changes and claim one is cheating but another is simply making the game more accessible to someone.' 

I'm going to have to call you out on that one. Macros do not change the way the weapon was intended to function. The weapon has a maximum rate of fire coded into it. Macros do not change that. Macros do, however, allow a player to reach the weapon's maximum RoF if they are otherwise physically unable to do so. This makes it more accessible to someone. 

In short, I still don't understand why you would take a stand against using macros. They have very limited use and potentially unlimited benefits. Most importantly, simple macros like simulated mouse button inputs do not change the playing field in a non-competitive environment such as this one.

[thineubaut]

ShadedPhoenix wrote...

You require a macro for that?
I pop 9-11 shots out of my raptor before cloak wears off, who the hell requires a macro to ire a semiauto quick....
(plays other shooters with semiautos mostly because they require the utmost skill to truly dominate)

I think the benefit might be in not getting carpal tunnel syndrome. I can do the same thing but my finger starts to hurt.

[Gevo]

If you guys are having problems with mouse button not registering in your mouse macros bind a keyboard key to secondary for fire, I used L then use L in your mouse macro, and it will register every key press instead of mouse1.

That's how I got around problems using mouse1 macro in setpoint

[EG NeoMorph]

nepereta wrote...

no Mod implies modification to the game. The script/macro exists outside the game and generates IO events eg LMB presses which are intrepretted by the game in the same manner as an individual pressing the LMB.

Actually macros ARE actually classed as cheating.

Just look at The Old Republic......

http://www.swtor.com...ad.php?t=344328

So basically Bioware hate macros and don't want us to use them.

[Nogthwai]

Yesterday I saw someone running around with a macro script for the Raptor, it was really over the top. As far as I know the Raptor has a much higher rate of fire than the mattock and coupled with Marksman it is just no longer fair to non macro users (i.e. your performance will be at least double of what a "normal" human could hope to achieve.) I hope they find some way to curb this behaviour.

It is pretty obvious that it wasn't designed to work like that, hence I'm against fire macros.

Modifié par Nogthwai, 30 mars 2012 - 11:40 .

[vivanto]

EG NeoMorph wrote...

nepereta wrote...

no Mod implies modification to the game. The script/macro exists outside the game and generates IO events eg LMB presses which are intrepretted by the game in the same manner as an individual pressing the LMB.

Actually macros ARE actually classed as cheating.

Just look at The Old Republic......

http://www.swtor.com...ad.php?t=344328

So basically Bioware hate macros and don't want us to use them.

That is.. a different kind of macro.

The one discussed on that link is a text macro that basically acts as an alias to one or more existing function(s), or even as a syntax sugar. It needs to be implemented by the application owner inside their application.

The one discussed on this thread is an input macro that acts completely outside the scope of any user application and is completely independant of everything but the OS.

Nowhere does that thread explicitly state it being a cheat, simply that Bioware wouldn't implement it, and that's simply because it would be their job to do it. While an external macro recorder/interpreter is done without them having to go to work on saturdays.

[EG NeoMorph]

But the Mattock is a SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Turning it into a fully auto or burst fire is altering the game's intent and is therefore classed as cheating... just as a joypad with autofire is cheating as it gives you an advantage over other players.

Look at Infinity Ward... they actively wrote code to STOP people using autofire macros in MW2/3. Anyone remember those pistols that looked like tiny SMGs? Eventually that will happen here too if BW don't slam the lid on this.

[Kastrenzo]

I don't know why anyone would need this. but that's my experience.

[nepereta]

The ironic thing about complaining about these Macros is that it bumps this Topic back up to the front page. Along with equipment agnostic macros. Appreciate all the fun people are having with the Macro. Noticed occasionally the macro gets 'sticky' which can be rectified by a single mouse click.

[Dridengx]

I can click/mash extremely fast my mattock seems broken, I steal all the kills

[nepereta]

 
Look at Infinity Ward... they actively wrote code to STOP people using autofire macros in MW2/3. Anyone remember those pistols that looked like tiny SMGs? Eventually that will happen here too if BW don't slam the lid on this.

Haven't checked it out fully but my experience so far indicates AutoHotKey stuff might actually be Turing complete. 

[Ediblestarfish]

EG NeoMorph wrote...

But the Mattock is a SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Turning it into a fully auto or burst fire is altering the game's intent and is therefore classed as cheating... just as a joypad with autofire is cheating as it gives you an advantage over other players.

Look at Infinity Ward... they actively wrote code to STOP people using autofire macros in MW2/3. Anyone remember those pistols that looked like tiny SMGs? Eventually that will happen here too if BW don't slam the lid on this.

There's no really good reason it's that way though.  Single fire is not benficial to the weapon's usage, unlike something with a high damage, high recoil, and low of rate fire, where it makes sense to line up and take your time.

You just spam fire the thing as fast as you can.

I think it's a very poor design decision.  It's not really necessary, it's not really fun, and there's already a rate of fire cap on the Mattock that prevents you from firing too fast anyhow.

[Moonwish]

 I have a Logitech gaming mouse. I use the Logitech software to have a rapid click macro. The only trick is, that my macro is pushing a key not a button, and in the ME config I add that button at the second column of the shoot field. It also on "repeat until hold" and on a 50ms delay. I didn't notice any problems with it, I shoot mattock (raptor, etc.) at its total ROF, altough Im gonna need to test it with marksman.

[ValorOfArms777]

Aslong as the macro is manually controlled and not based on "a automatic go off when aimed at such foe" as tahts boting, but using a macro is not in technicality breaking a rule it's pressing the button many times in a row or order

[tictactucrac]

I have ~400 RoF with my finger when i play normally (~6.7/s), i wouldn't use a macro to gain +50 (Mattock = max 450 if i remember well), IMO.

Modifié par tictactucrac, 13 novembre 2012 - 05:54 .

[CmnDwnWrkn]

They made a full-auto version of the Mattock, and it's called the Cerberus Harrier. BioWare specifically makes this distinction - Mattock is semi-auto, while Harrier is full-auto. Both the Mattock and the Raptor have received several damage buffs to compensate for the continuous, fast clicking they require to achieve full DPS. A high damage output is the "reward" for continually mashing the button at full speed; otherwise, you get a moderate damage output if you fire at a moderate rate. The Mattock was clearly never intended to fire full-auto, nor is it intended to allow the player to achieve full DPS without "earning it." A macro trivializes the firing rate, allows one to achieve full DPS quite easily, and is exploiting the game mechanics in a way that was not intended.