... If it does, ask a binary question and I'll give a yes/no

Huttball clicking macro? tons of clicks but the game will only ever register one of them. allowed?

What about the software that comes with the SWTOR Razer Mouse. That is specifically build for Macroing. I think this is a bit confusing for folks who forked over $100 for the hardware and software based on this exact feature set.

 

Now you're saying that it's illegal to use the features of a product, which is specifically co-branded with SWTOR, that you marketed for this purpose?????

Most of the key remapping he said is ok also requires the macro software, it's just a single key macro, so the G1 key on that Logitech keyboard now equals <CTRL 1>. So, you're pressing G1 instead of Control and 1 together. The problem is when that G1 key is programmed to do more than just that one thing.

Chiming in....

 

I'll be as clear as I can be.

 

Automation of the game in any way is against the ToS. This includes macro'ing in order to respec during Warzone matches.

 

Remapping keys on a keyboard (or Nostromo or Logitech) device so that one key press == one click or ability cast within the game is fine. Using a programmable keyboard or software macro so that one key press == multiple clicks or ability casts in the game is not.

 

Hopefully that doesn't leave room for 'interpretation'. If it does, ask a binary question and I'll give a yes/no

Your response leads me to believe the official answer would be no, but I'll ask anyway. If I were to set up a macro to switch specs as mentioned but only used it as a quality-of-life thing that wasn't used in PVP or in the middle of a PVE encounter would that still be considered against TOS and actionable? Is it against the TOS but only frowned upon and wouldn't get actioned if it's not abused, as it was in the OP? Is the answer to the last question a yes, but you can't officially state that so you'll respond with a no even if it's a yes? If that's a yes, then you can just wink and I won't tell anyone.

Changing specs can be a big PITA if you have to do it often and any way to avoid the tedium would be welcome.

Chiming in....

 

I'll be as clear as I can be.

 

Automation of the game in any way is against the ToS. This includes macro'ing in order to respec during Warzone matches.

 

Remapping keys on a keyboard (or Nostromo or Logitech) device so that one key press == one click or ability cast within the game is fine. Using a programmable keyboard or software macro so that one key press == multiple clicks or ability casts in the game is not.

 

Hopefully that doesn't leave room for 'interpretation'. If it does, ask a binary question and I'll give a yes/no

So does that mean you are actually going to enforce on 3-4 second respecs now? and I mean more than just when you get reports because rules without enforcement just means that the majority of suckers will follow the rules while a few won't, and will those few will then have an edge that they quite understandably use. If you don't enforce it everyone can justify that even though its a violation they have to do it to be competitive, since others are doing it with little to no risk since it can be a tricky thing for players to catch.

TLDR: 2 binary questions. Are you going to enforce on respec macros and are you going proactively shut down respec macros or merely investigate and enforce on reports?

Chiming in....

 

I'll be as clear as I can be.

 

Automation of the game in any way is against the ToS. This includes macro'ing in order to respec during Warzone matches.

 

Remapping keys on a keyboard (or Nostromo or Logitech) device so that one key press == one click or ability cast within the game is fine. Using a programmable keyboard or software macro so that one key press == multiple clicks or ability casts in the game is not.

 

Hopefully that doesn't leave room for 'interpretation'. If it does, ask a binary question and I'll give a yes/no

Congratulations on opening that can of worms.

Ready the popcorn!

Automation of the game in any way is against the ToS. This includes macro'ing in order to respec during Warzone matches.

 

Remapping keys on a keyboard (or Nostromo or Logitech) device so that one key press == one click or ability cast within the game is fine. Using a programmable keyboard or software macro so that one key press == multiple clicks or ability casts in the game is not.

Thank you for stepping in to clarify this for everyone. While some of us were fairly certain the policy forbid such behavior, there were a considerable number of us who took a more liberal interpretation. Now everyone should be clear on what is and is not allowed.

I hope that the discussions that have taken place here regarding the ease of respeccing, the use of respec during warzones, and macro utility in general will be useful to staff in developing new features, or modifying old ones to be more player-friendly.

Yeesh folks, seriously? He made it very clear.

For those of you having a challenge with his very clear statement as to what IS and IS-NOT acceptable, let me assist you, quoting Phillips own words, and with traffic light colors.

IS ALLOWED:

Remapping keys on a keyboard (or Nostromo or Logitech) device so that one key press == one click or ability cast within the game is fine.

IS-NOT ALLOWED (no matter what your razer naga, keyboard, or pet gerbil is willing to do for you):

Using a programmable keyboard or software macro so that one key press == multiple clicks or ability casts in the game is not.

Phillips comment is sure to reignite the demand for multi-spec on the click of a key of course. AND in game enforcement of statement of record.

Remapping keys on a keyboard (or Nostromo or Logitech) device so that one key press == one click or ability cast within the game is fine. Using a programmable keyboard or software macro so that one key press == multiple clicks or ability casts in the game is not.

 

Hopefully that doesn't leave room for 'interpretation'. If it does, ask a binary question and I'll give a yes/no

I think a lot of confusion comes from the wording of BW's previous post stating that "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."

I have no idea what kind of function Bioware intends that to cover, but it seems to involve more than remapping keys. So my "binary question" is: Can we treat that guidance as out-of-date and effectively overruled?

(I think the answer should be 'yes,' or it will be a continuing source of confusion)

Chiming in....

 

I'll be as clear as I can be.

 

Automation of the game in any way is against the ToS. This includes macro'ing in order to respec during Warzone matches.

awesome! A definitive answer.

Presumably the operative phrase above is "macro to respec". If a player is out of WZ the same respec macro is still prohibited, right?

TANGENT: it is a lot easier to make forbidden behavior impossible or unprofitable. E.g. recently the "body type 1 in the corner of the Novare hut" exploit was fixed (or so the patch notes say). This is much better than leaving the exploit but saying exploiters are breaking the ToS.

Likewise, if there was a minimum time between when the "respec skills" button was pressed and when the "commit" takes effect the value of a respec macro would go way down. Instead of having to police that particular usage you've removed the incentive to violate the ToS and then spending resources policing this rule.

Remapping keys on a keyboard (or Nostromo or Logitech) device so that one key press == one click or ability cast within the game is fine. Using a programmable keyboard or software macro so that one key press == multiple clicks or ability casts in the game is not.

discussion example: I have the following numeric to ability mapping

1. dispatch (target must be below 30% health)
   
2. guardian slash (often on cooldown)
   
3. basic attack (uses no mana, always off of cooldown)
   
4. riposte (requires a proc, ignores the GCD)
   
5. saber throw
   
6. force leap
   

If I program my razer naga so that the '1' button sends '123' is that allowed? This is the typical priority list example. for a single press of '1', only one of dispatch, guardian slash, basic attack will cast

How about if when I press '1' it sends '4123'? This will actually cause 2 abilities to be cast (if riposte is procced) since riposte ignores the GCD. This is a specific example of the general single key press casts 1 or more abilities that do not respect the GCD and 1 ability that does.

clearly a macro that sends '5', delay 1.3 seconds, '6' when I press the '5' button is prohibited.

Hopefully that doesn't leave room for 'interpretation'. If it does, ask a binary question and I'll give a yes/no

Here are some questions with yes/no answers:

• has BW disciplined any players in the last 3 months for using a respec macro in warzone?
  
• has BW disciplined any players in the last 3 months for using a macro that casts more than 1 ability with a single key press ? E.g. the '1234' or the '56' example above?
  

Based on things people have said in forums, I'm pretty sure there are people using both respec macros and huttball grabbing macros. If you are not catching and disciplining them I have to wonder at the value of the rules.

Huttball clicking macro? tons of clicks but the game will only ever register one of them. allowed?

he answered that.... more than one click/ability = no go

he answered that.... more than one click/ability = no go

but we'll never be able to tell if someone is using a rapid click macro or not, so if its up to use to report before they investigate or do any enforcement... then its kind of a pointless rule unless we want to report every time someone picks up a hutball before us, thinking maybe they beat me because of a macro rather than latency ect.

but we'll never be able to tell if someone is using a rapid click macro or not, so if its up to use to report before they investigate or do any enforcement... then its kind of a pointless rule unless we want to report every time someone picks up a hutball before us, thinking maybe they beat me because of a macro rather than latency ect.

Hence the enforcement questions in my previous post. A rule that is not enforced (for what ever reason) is a bad rule.

Hence the enforcement questions in my previous post. A rule that is not enforced (for what ever reason) is a bad rule.

hence my previous post 5 posts above yours

he answered that.... more than one click/ability = no go

but there is only one effective click/ability registered - it is only doing 1 thing in game - maybe kinda like lag/rubberbanding affecting an ability going off, so instead have the key "attempt" the same ability back-to-back

on a side note, the current means of picking up the huttball is kinda dumb, should have a 1 to 3 second "cast time" kinda like the bomb plants, but shorter.

also, Why should this be included when it isn't giving a competitive advantage? (y/n question) i.e. for respeccing in a raid or when you que for multiple role's and you want to switch to the one the groupfinder selects for you or you just want an easy way of linking your guild's ts/vent/mumble info in ops so the pug can join your chat or you like the /doubelasers emote and don't want to type it out each time.

Most of the key remapping he said is ok also requires the macro software, it's just a single key macro, so the G1 key on that Logitech keyboard now equals <CTRL 1>. So, you're pressing G1 instead of Control and 1 together. The problem is when that G1 key is programmed to do more than just that one thing.

Well then there is a massive conflict here. I think I understand the guidelines he's outlined just fine. However, BioWare and NAGA produced and marketed this mouse:

http://www.gamestop.com/star-wars-the-old-republic-gaming-mouse/98536

This mouse retails (or did retail) for $139.99 at GameStop, Amazon, NewEgg and others. It comes with software, branded with SWTOR that does just this. In fact, the product description clearly states:

"Instantly store and access your macros, key bindings, configurations and more from the cloud."

Terrible business practice folks. Absolutely terrible. They went out of their way to develop, brand and produce a product that they knew was illegal according to their TOS or EULA or whatever. Oh lemme guess, we the customers are supposed to know more about their game than they do. Oh, OK.

What about the software that comes with the SWTOR Razer Mouse. That is specifically build for Macroing. I think this is a bit confusing for folks who forked over $100 for the hardware and software based on this exact feature set.

 

Now you're saying that it's illegal to use the features of a product, which is specifically co-branded with SWTOR, that you marketed for this purpose?????

You should have read the ToS before buying it.

 

discussion example: I have the following numeric to ability mapping

1. dispatch (target must be below 30% health)
   
2. guardian slash (often on cooldown)
   
3. basic attack (uses no mana, always off of cooldown)
   
4. riposte (requires a proc, ignores the GCD)
   
5. saber throw
   
6. force leap
   

 

If I program my razer naga so that the '1' button sends '123' is that allowed? This is the typical priority list example. for a single press of '1', only one of dispatch, guardian slash, basic attack will cast

 

1 key press for 1 ability. What is so hard to understand about that? 1 key-press sending 1, 2 and 3 is illegal.

What about the software that comes with the SWTOR Razer Mouse. That is specifically build for Macroing. I think this is a bit confusing for folks who forked over $100 for the hardware and software based on this exact feature set.

 

Now you're saying that it's illegal to use the features of a product, which is specifically co-branded with SWTOR, that you marketed for this purpose?????

1. Razar had that mouse already, it was reskined

2. Swtor Terms say you can not use Marcos in the game which was just reiterated.

It's like say apple is responsible for all the apps in their App Store which they did not create.

You should have read the ToS before buying it.

and right now they are all locked in a room screaming at each other trying to figure out why yet another MMO with the Star Wars brand is a colossal failure.

Terrible business practice folks. Absolutely terrible. They went out of their way to develop, brand and produce a product that they knew was illegal according to their TOS or EULA or whatever. Oh lemme guess, we the customers are supposed to know more about their game than they do. Oh, OK.

No, actually all they did was collect a licensing fee for a product someone else had already developed and wanted to sell with new branding. It's nothing more sinister than that. The fact people didn't read the ToS or decided to ignore them isn't BWs fault. Each player is responsible for their own actions. Hard fact of life, but that's how it is. No one else is responsible for making sure you know and/or the rules either in the game or in the rest of life.

1. Razar had that mouse already, it was reskined

2. Swtor Terms say you can not use Marcos in the game which was just reiterated.

 

It's like say apple is responsible for all the apps in their App Store which they did not create.

That's awesome. So they have no responsibility at all. Oh OK. We'll see how that works out for them. Oh wait, they already lost over 2 million subscribers and had to go F2P within the first 12 months. OK. Never mind... we already saw.

That's awesome. So they have no responsibility at all. Oh OK. We'll see how that works out for them. Oh wait, they already lost over 2 million subscribers and had to go F2P within the first 12 months. OK. Never mind... we already saw.

Your going to have trouble establishing causation there. There are much better guesstimates as to why their subscriber numbers tanked.

Your going to have trouble establishing causation there. There are much better guesstimates as to why their subscriber numbers tanked.

Well I'm not trying to seek your approval, I'm stating facts. They lost over 2 million subscribers (75%) within the first 12 months. The majority of the team quit or was laid off in the first year, including the original owners/partners of BioWare LOL. I'm not "establishing causation". We're not having a debate. Those are facts.

Here's another fact. I don't care why. This is yet another MMO with the Star Wars brand that is a colossal failure. Crap like this is just one of a million reasons why.

That's awesome. So they have no responsibility at all. Oh OK. We'll see how that works out for them. Oh wait, they already lost over 2 million subscribers and had to go F2P within the first 12 months. OK. Never mind... we already saw.

Why do u think they show you the terms before you do anything with the game. Legally they already told u and waived responsibility

Well I'm not trying to seek your approval, I'm stating facts. They lost over 2 million subscribers (75%) within the first 12 months. The majority of the team quit or was laid off in the first year, including the original owners/partners of BioWare LOL. I'm not "establishing causation". We're not having a debate. Those are facts.

 

Here's another fact. I don't care why. This is yet another MMO with the Star Wars brand that is a colossal failure. Crap like this is just one of a million reasons why.

If you have just stuck to the bolded part you would have been fine. sigh*

You are right the numbers you gave do qualify as "facts" establishing causation however is showing that there is reason to believe that the "facts" were caused by what you are saying they were caused by. In this case expecting people to read the TOS and putting their brand on products that can be used in ways that violate the TOS. You won't establish that as the reason SWTOR lost almost 2million subs. You can do better with the argument that it is part of a larger mindset or way of doing business that lost them the subs, but that is up for debate as well. Lack of content or the impossibility of breaking into a highly saturated market already dominated by blizzard could have been just as much to blame. But I haven't proven causation either.