Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Macros for pvp, respecing, grabbing huttballs. Legal?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > PvP
Macros for pvp, respecing, grabbing huttballs. Legal?
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

MidichIorian's Avatar


MidichIorian
06.21.2013 , 01:37 PM | #191
I find it a bit weird that a licensed product (Swtor mouse) comes with a program that supports actions that apparently go against the TOS. Isnt this something you, BW/EA, should have thought about before you licensed it? Sure, you can argue that the mouse isnt game-specific and can be used in games where such actions indeed are allowed too but one can easily get the impression that the mouse is developed specifically for Swtor. Add to this that the program in itself has been given a swtor skin, something a standard Naga Epic doesnt come with.

Maelael's Avatar


Maelael
06.21.2013 , 01:37 PM | #192
As this is getting stupid, the VOIP products don't interact with the game. That's like banning someone for playing right next to someone and having that advantage.

They're referring to things that actually interact with the game, and manipulate the mechanics of the game. IE, external products that interact with the game and perform more than one action with one click.

Pre typing something and leaving it in chat would be disabled if they didn't want that.

Seriously, use common sense and perspective changes.

Capt_Beers's Avatar


Capt_Beers
06.21.2013 , 02:00 PM | #193
I'd like to point out that the SWTOR mouse and keyboard are no longer available on the Razer website and it isn't listed on the site under the "Licensed & Team" section.

I would like to know how BW could have licensed a mouse that by design of the hardware and software (both that used SWTOR art assets and had to be looked over by BW/EA for approval)was intended for use with macros? The SWTOR mouse cost about $50 more than the normal Naga and you mean to tell me you were supposed shell over extra cash for a mouse that you're not allowed to use all the functionality for? That is simply outrageously shady business practice.

That's like having officially licensed MLB branded steroids.
<HVND> - Harbinger - <HVND>
Keith-Stone 55 Combat Medic | | CaptBeers 55 Arsenal | | FOTM-Reroll 55 Tactics
Keet-Stone 55 Focus | | Keef-Stone 55 Infiltration | | Key'th 55 Pyrotech

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.21.2013 , 02:05 PM | #194
Quote: Originally Posted by Phillip_BW View Post

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.
Thank you for the clear example. Even I understand it!

Now I will diverge into a discussion of your logic behind the rule ... the logic is "a player should have to chose between the delay it takes to type his tactical message "inc g" and fighting -- a macro makes the "inc g" message too easy and is an unfair advantage". OK, but by that logic, using voice chat (teamspeak, ventrilo, mumble) give an even bigger advantage than a single key press that sends the ops chat "inc g".

To condense my argument ...

voice chat with tactical chatter >>> macros for "inc g" et cetera > typing "inc g" ops chat.

So, the comparatively huge advantage of voice chat is acceptable per ToS but the (comparatively) moderate advantage of a "inc g" ops chat macro is verboten? Ooooh kaaaaay.

Spoiler


Quote:

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.
again, thank you -- determining pixel color is very clear -- this is what I originally thought of when there was the rather short and vague statement of "no automation".


Quote:



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.
In my previous post I gave specific examples that you could have answered "yes" or "no". Why not provide your generic rule (e.g. text above) in addition to answering yes or no to my explicit examples. Is it that hard to quote a previiously posted question and type one of
  • yes, that example is allowed
  • no that example is not allowed
  • I'm not sure I understand your example here

---

For your convenience I provide 3 fully specified use cases for you to respond to

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
[ ]prohibited by ToS
[ ] example not clear enough to give a ruling


Commentary: dispatch, guardian strike and strike all share the GCD so a single key press (IRL) will never result in more than one in game ability being cast (activated). I expect this to be allowed.

Use case 2
  • keycode to ability bindings (guardian class)
    • 1 - riposte (off GCD)
    • 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, 3with no significant delay between keycodes
  • ability bound to 1 is cast (off GCD), ability bound to 2 is cast.

[ ] allowed by ToS
[ ]prohibited by ToS
[ ] example not clear enough to give a ruling


commentary: I expect this to be prohibited because 2 abilities are cast/activated as the result of a single key press

Use case 3
  • user positions mouse over huttball spawn
  • user presses '1' on his keyboard
  • macro system sends a steam of <right click> events for approximately the next 2 seconds
  • user successfully picks up the huttball (a single action, n'est-pas?)

[ ] allowed by ToS
[ ]prohibited by ToS
[ ] example not clear enough to give a ruling


commentary: I expect this to be allowed because at most 1 in game action (grabbing the huttball) can result from the single key press. It is also possible that nothing happens as a result of the keypress because someone else gets the ball first.

Use case 4
  • keycode to ability bindings (guardian class)
    1. 1 - riposte (off GCD)
    2. 2 - guardian slash
    3. 3 - strike
  • user presses the '1' key on his device, macro system sends keycode 1, riposte is executed
  • as quickly as possible (0.011 seconds later?), user presses '1' again, macros system sends keycode 2, guardian slash is not executed because it is on cooldown
  • as quickly as possible (0.011 seconds later?), user presses '1' again, macro system sends keycode 3, strike ability is executed (it is never on cooldown, riposte did not trigger a GCD, it requires no mana)

[ ] allowed by ToS
[ ]prohibited by ToS
[ ] example not clear enough to give a ruling


commentary: This is your very example, fully specified. I expect it to be allowed by ToS. Personally, I don't see that allowing this and prohibiting use case 2 makes much sense ...
---

I thank you for actively participating. I hope you will deign to quote my use cases above and put a check mark in one box for each case.

Mr. Hat says "BW support is the best"!
I am a bad player, so what?

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.21.2013 , 02:11 PM | #195
<pedantic>I will demonstrate filling in the checkboxes in the use case below (look for red text)

Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
Thank you for the clear example. Even I understand it!

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


Commentary: dispatch, guardian strike and strike all share the GCD so a single key press (IRL) will never result in more than one in game ability being cast (activated). I expect this to be allowed.

Use case 2
  • keycode to ability bindings (guardian class)
    • 1 - riposte (off GCD)
    • 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, 3with no significant delay between keycodes
  • ability bound to 1 is cast (off GCD), ability bound to 2 is cast.

[ ] allowed by ToS
[ ]prohibited by ToS
[X] example to clear enough to give a ruling


commentary: I expect this to be prohibited because 2 abilities are cast/activated as the result of a single key press

Use case 3
  • user positions mouse over huttball spawn
  • user presses '1' on his keyboard
  • macro system sends a steam of <right click> events for approximately the next 2 seconds
  • user successfully picks up the huttball (a single action, n'est-pas?)

[X] allowed by ToS
[ ]prohibited by ToS
[ ] example to clear enough to give a ruling


commentary: I expect this to be allowed because at most 1 in game action (grabbing the huttball) can result from the single key press. It is also possible that nothing happens as a result of the keypress because someone else gets the ball first.

Use case 4
  • keycode to ability bindings (guardian class)
    1. 1 - riposte (off GCD)
    2. 2 - guardian slash
    3. 3 - strike
  • user presses the '1' key on his device, macro system sends keycode 1, riposte is executed
  • as quickly as possible (0.011 seconds later?), user presses '1' again, macros system sends keycode 2, guardian slash is not executed because it is on cooldown
  • as quickly as possible (0.011 seconds later?), user presses '1' again, macro system sends keycode 3, strike ability is executed (it is never on cooldown, riposte did not trigger a GCD, it requires no mana)

[X] allowed by ToS
[ ]prohibited by ToS
[ ] example to clear enough to give a ruling


commentary: This is your very example, fully specified. I expect it to be allowed by ToS. Personally, I don't see that allowing this and prohibiting use case 2 makes much sense ...
---

I thank you for actively participating. I hope you will deign to quote my use cases above and put a check mark in one box for each case.
Phillip, can you do that? I knew you could! </pendantic>

Mr. Hat says "BW support is the best"!
I am a bad player, so what?

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.21.2013 , 02:18 PM | #196
Quote: Originally Posted by Maelael View Post
Thank you for the detailed answers! Hopefully this encourages people to start reporting again and some visible action is taken.
Sadly, I don't see how players can see anything to report when his opponent uses a respec (or other prohibited macro). It is not like a speed hack which is easily observable.

Mr. Hat says "BW support is the best"!
I am a bad player, so what?

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
06.21.2013 , 02:20 PM | #197
Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
voice chat with tactical chatter >>> macros for "inc g" et cetera > typing "inc g" ops chat.

So, the comparatively huge advantage of voice chat is acceptable per ToS but the (comparatively) moderate advantage of a "inc g" ops chat macro is verboten? Ooooh kaaaaay.

Perhaps you will surprise me by being logically consistent and tell me that using teamspeak (or other voice chat) to communicate tactical information ("incoming west") is also violation of the ToS.
I am aware this is for the Dev should they choose to comment but...

As others have stated Voice chat does nothing to modify/interact with the game. You simply can't tell people "Hey, you can't talk on your phone" while they play a game. You'd also have to tell people they can't be in the same room.

Also, it would near impossible to tell if someone is on voice chat. It's fairly easy to tell if players are using macros since they move faster than a human can possibly do so. (A macro will stroke the "I" "N" "C" "space" "w" "e" "s" "t" key faster than a human can possibly ever do) but how are you going to measure their voice-chat?
Player Responsibility: Players have the responsibility to strive for improvement before asking for changes.
Player Accountability: Insufficient credits, lack of gear, poor reputation, and inability to compete is the price of laziness, incompetence, and/or unwillingness.

TrooperSev's Avatar


TrooperSev
06.21.2013 , 02:24 PM | #198
Quote: Originally Posted by Glzmo View Post
Playing devil's advocate here, but perhaps the following is something to think about:

Are people that use third party Teamspeak/Ventrilo/Skype/etc. to gain an advantage over other players also in violation of the TOS as well (some may remember that there was anti-voice-communication code in place during beta)? People using voice communication don't even have to press a single key when fighting to tell their team "Incoming Snow" and they can even use longer sentences, like "Five people Incoming at Snow, three Marauders, one Sorcerer and one mercenary. Possibly a Stealther, too!" which takes zero downtime away from fighting for them. For a regular player, typing this up would mean he's dead before he can finish the sentence. But with voice communication he may just be able to hold them off long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

On the same token, what about people that sit in the same room (on a LAN party or whatever) while playing and actually talk to each other without any lag?

Also, is copying and pasting text into the chat window not allowed either? If one that guards snow copies the string /ops Incoming Snow! into their clipboard and pastes it into the chat window, would that be a violation of the TOS as well? Copy & Paste is an OS function and technically "third party" as well since the OS isn't published by EA/Bioware. Also, once you have written it down, you can always use up or down cursors to bring up the text again and quickly re-submit it in chat.

How can pick up groups/random warzone groups possibly get even with premades that use Teamspeak/Ventrilo/Skype/other VoIP programs? There is hardly enough time to pass voice server data around at the beginning of a warzone. If premades would never be matched against pickup groups, this wouldn't be as much of a problem, but nowadays you even get premades of guilds with voice communication in the sub-level 30 warzone brackets that most often go against random groups which completely kills the fun as they just waltz over any random groups with ease and also cause those players in random groups that get their first taste of PVP to never enter a warzone again in disgust.

Also, some people with certain disabilities that don't have as many fingers may have to use macros with multiple keystrokes in order to even be able to play the game and get somewhere near competitiveness. Will they be punished as well? It certainly wouldn't surprise me if they would, since you have even neglected to implement the long-promised color blind mode, gamma slider, brightness and contrast controls (which were present during beta and some even until Game Update 1.4 in the live game), the in-game macro/scripting system, chat bubbles and other accessibility options so far...

Again, just playing devil's advocate here. But it's certainly food for thought.
Vent, TS, and Mumble are all software that doesn't interfere with the game. It's against the tos to make swtor do things it's not designed to do. Hence why macros are against tos. As long as whatever you are using is not actively contribiting to gameplay, you are fine. Case in point, active dps meters. The programs such as mox, or torparse pull data from a file seperate from the game.

Since voips don't use any information from swtor, it would be impossible to track on their end even if they did want to stop it.
Dark Helmet - "So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Maelael's Avatar


Maelael
06.21.2013 , 02:24 PM | #199
Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
Sadly, I don't see how players can see anything to report when his opponent uses a respec (or other prohibited macro). It is not like a speed hack which is easily observable.
Going from one set of skills to another set of skills in under 10 seconds while hiding behind a pillar in voidstar. The animations are different for the top tree skills, its pretty damn easy to tell.

Some of it is "This looks too clean and perfect" but at the same time, I uber speed click 3 mouse buttons and toggle shift back and forth to get stuff thats normally on GCD to fire, so it would look the same even in their logging.

But really? Their feeds and recordings are pretty telling when you see em do it.

Mostly, people just wont post feeds and I wish BW luck in enforcement.

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.21.2013 , 02:26 PM | #200
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
It's fairly easy to tell if players are using macros since they move faster than a human can possibly do so. (A macro will stroke the "I" "N" "C" "space" "w" "e" "s" "t" key faster than a human can possibly ever do) but how are you going to measure their voice-chat?
It is possible to create macros (e.g. a respec macro) that act at human speeds. Heck, I can even create a macro that puts some randomness in the delay between keycode events that are sent. My understanding of the ToS is that these are also prohibited. These would probably be harder to detect.

E.g. if I could record several attempts at respeccing from DPS to tank (including gear change), select the fastest and then play back an exact recording at the press of a single key that would most definitely be more convenient that actually respeccing manually each time. It is also a clear violation of the ToS.

Mr. Hat says "BW support is the best"!
I am a bad player, so what?