I don't really think that people want to put an end to the use VOIP while playing the game, but if BioWare's stance on text macros is that they are considered a violation of the ToS, then it would make sense that VOIP should also be against the ToS. This is especially true because BW's reasoning is that text macros give player's that use them a distinct advantage over those who do not, so it make sense that VOIP would also fall into this category, and therefor should be disallowed.

VIOP doesn't interact with the game at all. a text macro is interacting with the game by automating a task for an advantage.

Text Macros

 

One click 'enter chat, type 'inc snow!', hit enter' text macros designed to warn others is completely against the ToS. You need to make a decision - do I take the time to type 'inc snow' to the ops group, or do I just keep fighting this person... Think of it as an evaluation on if you are using a tool that gives you an unfair advantage over somebody not using that same tool.

 

Detection of abuse

There are many claims based on guesswork that we can't tell when a person is running automation for systems like field respeccing within seconds. Every time you interact with the server we log either the specific event or an aggregate of similar events firing multiple times. We can (and do!) look through those logs using analytic engines. If you want to know more about the concept, look up 'big data' in google - we strive to make all decisions on making changes to the game based on the data we have, and we have a lot of data.

 

1.) By that logic using voice chat would be against the ToS. I don't see what the big deal is with that. How is it any different that using copy/paste? I know a lot of players that copy inc messages so they can paste it into chat quickly. Really that is no different than using a text macro. There is no logic to your post on this aspect because not only is it harmless, there are also other means to accomplish the same thing that according to this are not against the ToS.

2.) Then give us dual specs... I doubt people using those macros for "speed." I'd say its more of people are just tired of clicking through their trees over and over and over again and then having to redo their bars as well. If you guys would just give us dual specs already that problem would go away instantly. And as far as warzones go...That is a simple fix. You only allow a swap before the game starts. Once started there is no more switching specs.

Use case 6

 

Gaming Keyboard that supports six key anti-ghosting.

 

I press 3-6 key binds simultaneously. All keys are registered.

 

 

[ ] allowed by ToS

[ ] prohibited by ToS

[ ] example to clear enough to give a ruling

you really need a dev to answer this?

if you press 3 buttons, and each button is one separate ability, its okay. so you can hit 3 off-GCD abilities all at the same time

you really need a dev to answer this?

 

 

if you press 3 buttons, and each button is one separate ability, its okay. so you can hit 3 off-GCD abilities all at the same time

In this scenario, yes. However, if its 3 on-GCD abilities, he would need to manipulate the ability-timer, which makes it not ok (I think)

LOL, I never thought of using a text macro for warzone incomings...mostly because you never know how many are coming at a given time. I mean, how hard is it to type inc snow 2-3

people know i dont macro, cause I have typos/nearby misclicks under pressure all the time lol

I think part of the reason that people are bemused by this stance is that a cycling macro like the one okayed by Phillip_BW is a more complex script than many of the disallowed ones.

Not difficult at all. For the macro that he said to be allowed, you just have to ask the macro to impulse "1","2","3" and "4" in a short time frame. It's the game itself which will act as a script. There is nothing simplier.

If "1" is off-CD => "1" will be accepted, then "2","3","4" will be in "can't use yet" status because of GCD

If "1" is on CD, while "2" is not => "1" will be refused, "2" will be accepted, "3" and "4" will fail thanks to GCD

If "1" and "2" are on CD while "3" isn't => "1" and "2" will be refused, "3" will be accepted, "4" will fail thanks to GCD

You guess the last cases when only "4" is avaliable, and when none are.

This macro is in "grey-area" because the automation can be argued.

Note that as soon as one of the abilities is unaffected by GCD, the macro will make 2 abilities fire. It will be forbidden.

So a number of people have asked about text macros. A couple of others (even on reddit!) have mentioned 'colour detection to determine which action to take' systems. I even saw a questions about sequence clicking... I even saw claims that we can't detect anything and won't do a thing about this issue.

 

I'll address all four...

 

Text Macros

Strictly speaking, text macro's are against the ToS. If its for emotes etc and isn't being used as a way to advise others of an impending attack in a Warzone (inc snow! for example), then we will turn a blind eye to an extent. If you fire off emotes too many times in quick succession of course then you will get evaluated for if you are spamming.

 

One click 'enter chat, type 'inc snow!', hit enter' text macros designed to warn others is completely against the ToS. You need to make a decision - do I take the time to type 'inc snow' to the ops group, or do I just keep fighting this person... Think of it as an evaluation on if you are using a tool that gives you an unfair advantage over somebody not using that same tool.

 

Colour detection and evaluated action macros

The very act of determining a colour of a pixel on screen and as a result then using a specific action is one of the easy to understand examples of what we call automation. As soon as you have two things happening based on one key press, then its against the ToS.

 

Sequence clicking

If you have a system set up so that if you hit the same key 4 times likes so: '1, 1, 1, 1' and instead of just firing off whatever 1 is bound to it fires off '1, 2, 3, 4', then as long as you keep it to 'one key == one other key hit' its in that grey area of not true automation. There is a caveat - you can't have the macro determine a minimum time between clicks to work around the global cool down timing and only fire the next button in sequence if the GCD has expired.

 

If you instead have a system that when you hit 1, it fires of 1, 2, 3, 4 in quick succession or all at once (i.e. one click == many actions) in order to try and fire something that isn't currently in a cool down state then yes, that is against the ToS. Again, one click must always equal one action and only one action within the game.

 

Detection of abuse

There are many claims based on guesswork that we can't tell when a person is running automation for systems like field respeccing within seconds. Every time you interact with the server we log either the specific event or an aggregate of similar events firing multiple times. We can (and do!) look through those logs using analytic engines. If you want to know more about the concept, look up 'big data' in google - we strive to make all decisions on making changes to the game based on the data we have, and we have a lot of data.

 

We also use that data for game forensics - we may not react in a real-time manner for most things, but as people foolish enough to speedhack know, we can and do act based on irrefutable data.

 

Now, all that said, what are we going to be doing going forwards now that this issue is very much in the limelight?

 

Expect changes to the ability to field respec in Warzones. We were already working on this as part of some upcoming PvP updates (Bruce detailed some of that this week I believe), and we may bring the field respec changes forward - or we may just keep them where they are so to not impact the game update schedules and instead update our existing Warzone game forensic reporting to include inhumanly fast field respec events. Either way my advise if you are currently macroing within Warzones is to stop.

the only question i have with all of this is will you actually do it? I know from personal experiance i have reported the same person 6 days in a row for the same exploit just to seem him on the 6th day doing the same thing.

You guys say you log everything but yet you do not do a simple search for something like "lord" in a name to fix the people violating naming rules.

I totally believe you guys log everything and something as obvious as a macroed field respec is pretty obvious, but telling the difference in someone "fat fingering" 2 keys at the same time and having a macro do it is not something an algorithm can determine.

Like i said i am all for enforcing rules, but you have already set the precedent that you do not actively enforce many of the rules you have listed like the naming rules, it takes someone reporting people for you to realize that "lordwhatchadoit" or "DarthRêvan" has been breaking the rules for 9 months with just his name.

The only eyebrow raiser in this answer was the sample he took for calling an inc in a warzone.

First of all.... people don't call incs in random warzones.

Second, allowing a text message being linked to an ability doesn't seem like especially game breaking, would however improve the overall communication if you are not in voice chat and are running random content.

QUESTION: What makes one advantage fair and another unfair?

 

ANSWER: The people who make up the rules of the game decide what is allowed and what is prohibited. Doing something that is prohibited is unfair.

I disagree, While you would hope that a game company's rules would be rooted in fairness, it is possible for that company to create rules that are unfair, and in this case, it seems unfair to prohibit text macros unless they also prohibit voice chat.

Not difficult at all. For the macro that he said to be allowed, you just have to ask the macro to impulse "1","2","3" and "4" in a short time frame. It's the game itself which will act as a script. There is nothing simplier.

 

If "1" is off-CD => "1" will be accepted, then "2","3","4" will be in "can't use yet" status because of GCD

If "1" is on CD, while "2" is not => "1" will be refused, "2" will be accepted, "3" and "4" will fail thanks to GCD

If "1" and "2" are on CD while "3" isn't => "1" and "2" will be refused, "3" will be accepted, "4" will fail thanks to GCD

You guess the last cases when only "4" is avaliable, and when none are.

 

This macro is in "grey-area" because the automation can be argued.

 

Note that as soon as one of the abilities is unaffected by GCD, the macro will make 2 abilities fire. It will be forbidden.

A macro of the type you've just described was explicitly forbidden by Phillip_BW on page 21. Details on page 19. The explicitly allowed cycling macro requires the macro to be scripted in such a way that it sends the server only a single command per key press.

Copy/pasted text from Phillip_BW's post:

Interesting approach there funkiestj.

I thought I was pretty clear that one input action must equal only one action in game, but obviously not - so please find below red X's next to the correct answers.

Enjoy!

Use case 1

keycode to ability bindings (guardian class)

1 - dispatch

2 - guardian slash

3- strike

user presses the '1' key on his device

macro system (in response to the '1' key press) sends the keycodes 1, 2, 3 with no significant delay between keycodes

ability bound to 2 is cast, no other abilities are cast

[ ] allowed by ToS

[X] prohibited by ToS

[ ] example to clear enough to give a ruling

what is so complicated about this?

 

it doesnt matter what controller you are using, what keyboard, whether or not you have rebound keys, etc.

 

one button press = one ability performed. its not rocket science.........

Phillip disagrees. Use case 1 adheres to one button press, one (or no*) ability performed yet it is prohibited. either dispatch or guardian slash or strike is executed but never more than 1 per key press.

Use case 1

• keycode to ability bindings (guardian class)
  
  • 1 - dispatch
    
  • 2 - guardian slash
    
  • 3- strike
    

  [*]user presses the '1' key on his device

  [*]macro system (in response to the '1' key press) sends the keycodes 1, 2, 3 with no significant delay between keycodes

  [*]ability bound to 2 is cast, no other abilities are cast

[ ] allowed by ToS

[X ]prohibited by ToS

[ ] example not clear enough to give a ruling

NOTE: if Phillip backpedals on this and says he was wrong then it just illustrates the incomprehensibility of the current rules. He has not yet walked this one back.

[*] the key press may result in no ability being performed if the target is out of range.

1.) By that logic using voice chat would be against the ToS. I don't see what the big deal is with that. How is it any different that using copy/paste? I know a lot of players that copy inc messages so they can paste it into chat quickly. Really that is no different than using a text macro. There is no logic to your post on this aspect because not only is it harmless, there are also other means to accomplish the same thing that according to this are not against the ToS.

For people still harping on voice chat giving advantages etc:

Again it's an issue of what BW can and can't control.

 

I don't think any one is denying that Voip gives an advantage though I think people tend to over state it's potential (or most common use).

 

In an ideal, "fair" environment for pvp either everyone would have voice chat, macros, etc.. or no one would. But this isn't an ideal world and unfortunately, Bioware can only influence anything that:

 

1) Modifies it's Client

2) Inputs into it's client.

 

Voice chat does not, and so fair or unfair, they really can't make policy about it.

So -stop- trying to use voice chat to justify macro's. Maybe Bioware hates voice chat and thinks it's a bane on human existence. Like it or not though, they have -no- authority to tell people they can or can't use a voice program outside of their game. It's not in their jurisdiction.

I think part of the people posting here are trying to really clarify things they're not understanding.

 

Another part of them are trying to figure out what they can still get away with.

 

Some of them are outraged that Bioware ruled against them and are trying to justify macro use with another issue entirely.

 

Some of them are trying to make a point about fairness. (and not understanding the core concept of what BW does and doesn't have a say in.)

The two things I want more than anything:

1. a clear, understandable policy.
   
2. said policy is vigorously enforce. I.e. I don't want SWTOR PvP to be like Tour de France where PEDs cheating has been the rule, not the exception, among competitive riders (all winners?) over the last few decades.
   

If a rule is too hard to enforce then it is better to eliminate the rule.

I agree though, the definition of what is or isn't allowed seemed pretty clear to me.

Please reread this post in which two different BW employees given contradictory information about what is allowed and then tell me it is clear.

--

TANGENT: one of the phrases the comes up again and again in this dicussion is unfair advantage.

• superior playing skill is an advantage
  
• superior gear is an advantage
  
• superior choices in min/maxing gear is an advantage
  
• better computer hardware is an advantage
  
• better internet service is an advantage
  
• smaller latency is an advantage (usually the result of physical proximity)
  
• macros (compared with no macros) is an advantage. (note, based on Phillip_BW's last post I'd prefer to say all macro use in WZ is prohibited as that best reflects the stated policy and the traditional definition of macros)
  
• voice chat (vs no voice chat) is an advantage
  

if we ask the abstract question which of these advantages is fair and which is unfair? , the correct answer is "what ever the folks who run the game say is fair is fair, and what ever they say is unfair is unfair". I.e. they define what is fair/unfair via the rules.

It is a wholly subjective choice. Logic alone will not provide the answer.

Now BW will try to chose rules (definitions of fair/unfair) that they think will make their PvP most popular and bring in the most revenue.

Most players want logically consistent, understandable rules, hence the outrage that "inc west" macro is disallowed yet voice chat is (rightly) allowed.

---

Again, thanks Phillip_BW for wading in! I think the rulings you have provided give us bad rules but that is better than having stumble around in a cloud of uncertainty.

Thanks to all the players who are giving constructive input! It will be interesting to see if this thread results in changes that improve the rules for PvP some time before 2013 December 31.

He has to backpedal on case 1 because only 1 ability is being inputed into 1 GCD. There is no advantage at all.

To be frank, this whole debate is pointless. Bioware can NEVER stop people doing this despite what they claim. More so, it's not even worth the $ paying people to look into. Macro programs have been around for years. Most gaming companies rely on these third party companies to produce intuitive devices and software for games so that they do not have too. In some cases, these devices and software allow people to play who wouldn't normally be able too. I knew a guy who played battlefield 2 with only 1 arm. There is no question in my mind that he used similar software to be able to compete. If EA had of investigated and seen he was using third party programs and then decided he was against the TOS and banned him. Imagine the legal **** storm which would have ensued. "OMG EA HATES DISABLED PEOPLE!!! Down with EA!!!" Yeh, I don't think any gaming company wants to cross that line.

Moral of the story, Bioware needs to produce an alternative version for use with swtor.

The most important thing I got from this thread is that if I make a single-key macro to hit ctrl+u x2 to reset my broken warzone queue button every time I log in, I'm breaking the ToS. Interesting.

Indeed!

An obvious improvement to (what I think is) the current ToS

• provide a definition of automation that will cover and prohibit botting (e.g. reading screen pixels)
  
• allow all non-botting macros outside of combat.
  
• allow macros that implement work arounds for acknowledged bugs (ctrl-u, ctrl-u)
  

If would be so much easier if BW :

• said no macros what so ever are allowed until we implement macros in game. At that time our macros will be allowed
  
• did a respectable job of enforcing the ban on macros (i.e. the Tour de France issue). Anecdotal evidence suggests they do a pretty bad job here.
  

To be frank, this whole debate is pointless.

There is always a slim chance (0.0001%?) that we get BW to switch to more sensible terms of service -- e.g. eliminate prohibitions that are too hard (or impossible) to enforce.

Most battles that are worth fighting have a high probability of failure.

Please reread this post in which two different BW employees given contradictory information about what is allowed and then tell me it is clear.

 

--

 

TANGENT: one of the phrases the comes up again and again in this dicussion is unfair advantage.

I see an old post and a new post. This is nothing new, and considering Bioware's team has changed and/or shrunk in the last year, this is not unexpected. There is now a new ruling, it's terms where stated clearly.

As for the Tangent part: Again, Bioware can only rule on something in it's sphere of influence. Ideally, it want to rule out all unfair advantages. No matter how unfair Voice chat is (according to them) they can't, can't, can't tell people they can't use voice chat unless it:

1) Modifies their client.

2) Inputs into their client.

Voice chat does neither. It's like if I'm standing in a public space or park, across from a chicken joint with a sign stating some basic facts of how chickens are killed, cleaned, and transported for human consumption. As much as the chicken joint hates me, they can't physically come out and remove me from property outside of their control.

I see an old post and a new post. This is nothing new, and considering Bioware's team has changed and/or shrunk in the last year, this is not unexpected. There is now a new ruling, it's terms where stated clearly.

If BW does not want us to "have a confused" then they should clarify that both posts are correct because the police changed in the time between the two posts.

Currently the hypothesis that they don't know what they are talking about (i.e. policy has not changed) seems just as likely to me as your hypothesis above. In any event, both hypothesis are conjecture until we get a definitive response (that is only definitive until someone else contradicts it).

As for the Tangent part: Again, Bioware can only rule on something in it's sphere of influence.

We are in violent agreement on the point above. I chose to state the same thing using the words "a rule that can not be enforced is a bad rule that should be eliminated from the rulebook".

Ideally, it want to rule out all unfair advantages.

unfair, by definition, is a wholly subjective idea. An advantage is not unfair a priori. It is only unfair after we agree to some rules (e.g. BW ToS) or some fundamental principles that we use as the foundation for generating rules.

IF Lance Armstrong uses PEDs to gain an advantage in the Tour de France, this is only unfair because the organizers of the TdF arbitrarily decided to prohibit PEDs. In an alternate universe the same organizers have placed no restrictions on PEDs and Lance Armstrong use of PEDs is considered fair and he retains his awarded victories.

unfair is subjective, not absolute. Q.E.D.

unfair is subjective, not absolute. Q.E.D.

TANGENT: while fair vs unfair is subjective, cognitive science and sociology can give us objective measures of "is the game defined by the rules a fun game or not". It is possible to say "for population <X>, the game A (defined by rules A') is more fun than game B (defined by rules B')".

Please reread this post in which two different BW employees given contradictory information about what is allowed and then tell me it is clear.

I think you are one that should read those posts. Twice. And then some more.

It is okay to bind a macro that performs abilities after each other as long as it still requires the user to press the button on the physical keyboard each time a new action is performed

Translation:

We allow macros that perform sequence of 1 -> 2 -> 3 but also require player to press key 3 times, once for each action.

If you instead have a system that when you hit 1, it fires of 1, 2, 3, 4 in quick succession or all at once (i.e. one click == many actions) in order to try and fire something that isn't currently in a cool down state then yes, that is against the ToS. Again, one click must always equal one action and only one action within the game.

Translation:

We don't allow macros that perform sequence 1 -> 2 -> 3 without requiring player to press button 3 times.

Care to explain how this is contradictory?

TANGENT: one of the phrases the comes up again and again in this dicussion is unfair advantage.

• superior playing skill is an advantage
  
• superior gear is an advantage
  
• superior choices in min/maxing gear is an advantage
  
• better computer hardware is an advantage
  
• better internet service is an advantage
  
• smaller latency is an advantage (usually the result of physical proximity)
  
• macros (compared with no macros) is an advantage. (note, based on Phillip_BW's last post I'd prefer to say all macro use in WZ is prohibited as that best reflects the stated policy and the traditional definition of macros)
  
• voice chat (vs no voice chat) is an advantage
  

1-3: Avaible to everyone playing game

4-6: Above minimum requirements provides no advantage, playing below minimal requirements is player choice.

7: Game has no innate macro support, so using macros requires extra software/hardware, and provides advantages not included in game plan. So people playing game way it was intended(without macros) are at disadvantage, and BW can't counteract all imaginable uses of macros.

Still, macros itself are not considered 'unfair'(like ones fishing for free CD), only automation.

8: That's more of "Premade vs Pug", and there are already threads on this subject.

If BW does not want us to "have a confused" then they should clarify that both posts are correct because the police changed in the time between the two posts.

 

Currently the hypothesis that they don't know what they are talking about (i.e. policy has not changed) seems just as likely to me as your hypothesis above. In any event, both hypothesis are conjecture until we get a definitive response (that is only definitive until someone else contradicts it).

I'll remain by my hypothesis, but concede it isn't correct until proven so.

We are in violent agreement on the point above. I chose to state the same thing using the words "a rule that can not be enforced is a bad rule that should be eliminated from the rulebook".

As I am unaware of Bioware's capability and willingness to detect macro, I can't say if their ruling on their use is unenforceable or bad.

My point remains that even if Bioware has the capability to detect/deter voice chat, they can't do anything about it because they have no standing to tell people they can or can't run a program that doesn't literally modify it's program or input into it.

To compare/use voice chat programs to a macro program is apples to oranges.

unfair, by definition, is a wholly subjective idea. An advantage is not unfair a priori. It is only unfair after we agree to some rules (e.g. BW ToS) or some fundamental principles that we use as the foundation for generating rules.

 

IF Lance Armstrong uses PEDs to gain an advantage in the Tour de France, this is only unfair because the organizers of the TdF arbitrarily decided to prohibit PEDs. In an alternate universe the same organizers have placed no restrictions on PEDs and Lance Armstrong use of PEDs is considered fair and he retains his awarded victories.

 

unfair is subjective, not absolute. Q.E.D.

I have no comment.

Translation:

We don't allow macros that perform sequence 1 -> 2 -> 3 without requiring player to press button 3 times.

 

Care to explain how this is contradictory?

The fact that many people disagree on what this means illustrates BW's short coming in communicating their policy clearly.

Bioware does not pedantically define what an "action" or "in game action" is. Our difference of understanding comes from each of us chosing different defnitions of "action".

My definition

• a single in game action: one player ability is cast.
  

My guess as to your and Phillip's definition:

• a single in game action: a single MS Windows input event is sent from the operating system to the SWTOR client. NOTE: most computer operating systems have separate events for keyboard 'a' pressed down and keyboard 'a' released (often called 'a down' and 'a up' events). For the purposes of SWTOR, we will ignore keyboard and button up events and only consider 'down events'. I.e. receiving 'a down' event followed by 'a up' event counts as a single action by this definition, not 2 actions.
  

Consider the following scenario

• we are a level 55 sage with key bindings
  
  • 1 - project (force, 30m range)
    
  • 2 - strike (melee, 4m range)
    
  • 3 - unbound (i.e. '3' is bound to a quickslot but the quick slot has no ability)
    

  [*] our current enemy target is 20m away and we have clear line of sight

  [*] we press the '3' key. Was there an in game action?

  [*] we press the key '2' and the strike ability is not activated because the target is too far away. Was there an in game action?

  [*] we press the '1' key, project is activated and our enemy is smashed to tiny bits (praise be to Revan). Was there an in game action?

By my definition, pressing '3' and pressing '2' in the scenario above does not result in an in game action. Apparently by your and Phillip's definition, even pressing '3' is an in game action.

We all agree that pressing '1' in the scenario above results in an in game action.

Generally speaking, with my definition of "in game action" a 3rd party toon can observe each of my "in game actions". When my toon presses '1' and project kills my enemy you see it (if you are nearby). When I press '3' and '2' you see no actions.

Which of our two definitions of "in game action" seems more intuitive and useful? I'll let you decide.

---

I claim that nothing in the Beruthien post does anything to dissuade me from thinking that my definition of "in game action" is correct. This last point is what I mean when I say BW has done a bad job of communicating the ToS. Phillip also did a bad job of communicating. Only when I got him to rule on a few use cases could I guess that this "in game action" definition was the likely point of disagreement.

Good day,

--fj

This thread is pretty hilarious LOL keep it coming folks.

Also kinda sad too.....but the funny outways the sadness.

Well they do exist, in fact one of the members even streamed it several times. (Won't give the stream name). He's under the impression it is legal, as are the others. What I find to be sad is these players also talk a lot of trash, and when we found out they used programs a lot of their credibility went out the window, more so now that you guys are saying its against the TOS.

If it's against the ToS then why allow them to remain anonymous. That makes you just as guilty as they do. Think of it as if you witnessed a robbery and need to report it.