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

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.23.2013 , 02:50 AM | #291
Quote: Originally Posted by Kurvv View Post
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.

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

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.23.2013 , 02:55 AM | #292
Quote: Originally Posted by JackNader View Post
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.

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

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
06.23.2013 , 03:03 AM | #293
Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
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.
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.

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.23.2013 , 03:30 AM | #294
Quote: Originally Posted by Doomsdaycomes View Post
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).

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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.

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

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.23.2013 , 03:37 AM | #295
Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
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')".

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

Elear's Avatar


Elear
06.23.2013 , 05:03 AM | #296
Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?


Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
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.

Doomsdaycomes's Avatar


Doomsdaycomes
06.23.2013 , 05:08 AM | #297
Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by funkiestj View Post
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.
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.

funkiestj's Avatar


funkiestj
06.23.2013 , 12:55 PM | #298
Quote: Originally Posted by Elear View Post
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

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

Shikyo's Avatar


Shikyo
06.23.2013 , 03:01 PM | #299
This thread is pretty hilarious LOL keep it coming folks.



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

Vant's Avatar


Vant
06.23.2013 , 03:06 PM | #300
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliteAssasin View Post
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.