Bash macros need to GO

HatchetHaro

Synapsis123 wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

I personally think that for the sake of accessibility, some peripheral features like mod-tap and toggle-keys should be fine, but do so at your own risk.

Just because you have accessibility issues doesn't allow you to break the terms of service and cheat. You still have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

I am simply expressing the belief that the Terms of Service should include exceptions for accessibility issues, and/or for devs to come forward to greenlight the usage of certain features only for accessibility, for people with accessibility issues.

At the same time, as a game developer myself, I also understand and recognize the colossal can of worms that will be opened the moment anyone officially allows such features to be used, even if just for accessibility, as such things are notoriously difficult (if not impossible) to enforce, especially since such features are baked into hardware, evading even kernel anti-cheats.

Synapsis123 wrote: »

[snip]

I do not agree with the Terms of Service, but I did agreed to follow them.

People disagree with laws all the time, but in the end they have to follow them, or else they get consequences. Same deal.

You sound like someone who would say "Oh you don't like this government? Why don't you move somewhere else then?"

forum_gpt wrote: »

[snip]

Oh noooo, I did it again.

Synapsis123 wrote: »

You made claim that you could achieve perfect bash timing and your actual bash timings are 20% worse than what could be achieved by cheating. You made a claim and you were wrong. It isn't a bug because you're wrong. You just happen to be wrong, but you can't seem to concede the point.

Please provide proof of these bash timings possible only via macros along with the ping of the player performing those macros as well as proof that they are using macros. Otherwise, you don't really have any ground to stand on.

[edited to remove quote]

ZOS_Icy

Greetings,

We have recently removed some unnecessary back and forth from this thread. This is a reminder to keep the discussion civil and constructive. Please keep our Community Rules in mind moving forward.

Thank you for your understanding.

Galeriano2

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

IncultaWolf wrote: »

If you're dying to a bash build, it's just a skill issue. It's a very niche playstyle with predictable/telegraphed damage. I played bashcro for many months, and bound the bash key to my mouse wheel and also got accused of using "macros". @CameraBeardThePirate and @SkaraMinoc also have a ton of experience playing bash builds, so I'm sure they could share some insight if they haven't already.

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

My point is that there isn't any proper evidence you can have that someone would be using a bash macro, because it's very easy to achieve perfect bash timing by hand.

And yet even when asked to prove you could achieve perfect bash timing, no one has bothered to post screenshots. It should be super easy to logon, port to a house, and and provide a screenshot of a bash cmx.

What are you even talking about? There are multiple pictures in this very forum post showing a "perfect" bash timing, even describing how latency interacts with the bash timing to prevent anyone from reaching .333s (yes, even macros). There's also a bug post going over perfect bash timing in the bug section of the forum right now, again discussing how latency caps a perfect bash timing at about .38 seconds.

You made claim that you could achieve perfect bash timing and your actual bash timings are 20% worse than what could be achieved by cheating. You made a claim and you were wrong. It isn't a bug because you're wrong. You just happen to be wrong, but you can't seem to concede the point.

[edited to remove quote]

Do You have any proff to support Your claim that cheating could give 20% better bash timings though? If anyone made wrong claims it was You when You said quote "I couldn't reach the .333 that you can reach with macros". Do You have any proff other than Your word that 0,333 is possible with macros? Do You have any base to make a claim that it is possible?

The reality is that due to how the game is constructed and how cmx combat log works even macro isn't capable to reach repeatable perfect 0,33 sec intervals on bash in Your log.

You said quote "A human would probably be about 40% less efficient" reffering to Your compressed air mouse wheel spinning. You see I have the same mouse as Yours. I did 4 tests, 1 with same mouse spinning technique as Yours (turning on G502 scroll button and letting scroll spin with a help of compressed air), one with binding bash to a keyboard button, one with binding bash to a mouse scroll while using it normally (without the button that G502 has) and 1 with just good old RMB+LMB.

Can You guess which log comes from which test?






And before You even start guessing I can assure You that the way of performing each of these tests had nothing to do with final results since that 3% difference between best and worst score boils down to ping fluctuations, the way how game operates and cmx combat log registering method. It's also far from 40% difference You were expecting to see. Macro would be the subject to all those things and would provide pretty much the same results at best with a chance to even give worse results.

Oh and remember when You said quote "There is no way a human could reach .333". Well...



Do You think this happened because in that moment I clicked a button perfectly down to a 0,001 sec?

Oh and You also said that quote "A macro is 20% more efficient than an insane mouse wheel spinning"
Well that's interresting because I achieved less than 20% difference from best theoretically possible value without both macro and insane mouse wheel spinning



As far as being wrong goes I really don't think You're in a good place to call out others for it.

forum_gpt

Galeriano2 wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

IncultaWolf wrote: »

If you're dying to a bash build, it's just a skill issue. It's a very niche playstyle with predictable/telegraphed damage. I played bashcro for many months, and bound the bash key to my mouse wheel and also got accused of using "macros". @CameraBeardThePirate and @SkaraMinoc also have a ton of experience playing bash builds, so I'm sure they could share some insight if they haven't already.

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

My point is that there isn't any proper evidence you can have that someone would be using a bash macro, because it's very easy to achieve perfect bash timing by hand.

And yet even when asked to prove you could achieve perfect bash timing, no one has bothered to post screenshots. It should be super easy to logon, port to a house, and and provide a screenshot of a bash cmx.

What are you even talking about? There are multiple pictures in this very forum post showing a "perfect" bash timing, even describing how latency interacts with the bash timing to prevent anyone from reaching .333s (yes, even macros). There's also a bug post going over perfect bash timing in the bug section of the forum right now, again discussing how latency caps a perfect bash timing at about .38 seconds.

You made claim that you could achieve perfect bash timing and your actual bash timings are 20% worse than what could be achieved by cheating. You made a claim and you were wrong. It isn't a bug because you're wrong. You just happen to be wrong, but you can't seem to concede the point.

[edited to remove quote]

Do You have any proff to support Your claim that cheating could give 20% better bash timings though? If anyone made wrong claims it was You when You said quote "I couldn't reach the .333 that you can reach with macros". Do You have any proff other than Your word that 0,333 is possible with macros? Do You have any base to make a claim that it is possible?

The reality is that due to how the game is constructed and how cmx combat log works even macro isn't capable to reach repeatable perfect 0,33 sec intervals on bash in Your log.

You said quote "A human would probably be about 40% less efficient" reffering to Your compressed air mouse wheel spinning. You see I have the same mouse as Yours. I did 4 tests, 1 with same mouse spinning technique as Yours (turning on G502 scroll button and letting scroll spin with a help of compressed air), one with binding bash to a keyboard button, one with binding bash to a mouse scroll while using it normally (without the button that G502 has) and 1 with just good old RMB+LMB.

Can You guess which log comes from which test?






And before You even start guessing I can assure You that the way of performing each of these tests had nothing to do with final results since that 3% difference between best and worst score boils down to ping fluctuations, the way how game operates and cmx combat log registering method. It's also far from 40% difference You were expecting to see. Macro would be the subject to all those things and would provide pretty much the same results at best with a chance to even give worse results.

Oh and remember when You said quote "There is no way a human could reach .333". Well...



Do You think this happened because in that moment I clicked a button perfectly down to a 0,001 sec?

Oh and You also said that quote "A macro is 20% more efficient than an insane mouse wheel spinning"
Well that's interresting because I achieved less than 20% difference from best theoretically possible value without both macro and insane mouse wheel spinning



As far as being wrong goes I really don't think You're in a good place to call out others for it.

and how do we know these tests are legit?

CameraBeardThePirate

forum_gpt wrote: »

Galeriano2 wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

forum_gpt wrote: »

IncultaWolf wrote: »

If you're dying to a bash build, it's just a skill issue. It's a very niche playstyle with predictable/telegraphed damage. I played bashcro for many months, and bound the bash key to my mouse wheel and also got accused of using "macros". @CameraBeardThePirate and @SkaraMinoc also have a ton of experience playing bash builds, so I'm sure they could share some insight if they haven't already.

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

[snip]

My point is that there isn't any proper evidence you can have that someone would be using a bash macro, because it's very easy to achieve perfect bash timing by hand.

And yet even when asked to prove you could achieve perfect bash timing, no one has bothered to post screenshots. It should be super easy to logon, port to a house, and and provide a screenshot of a bash cmx.

What are you even talking about? There are multiple pictures in this very forum post showing a "perfect" bash timing, even describing how latency interacts with the bash timing to prevent anyone from reaching .333s (yes, even macros). There's also a bug post going over perfect bash timing in the bug section of the forum right now, again discussing how latency caps a perfect bash timing at about .38 seconds.

You made claim that you could achieve perfect bash timing and your actual bash timings are 20% worse than what could be achieved by cheating. You made a claim and you were wrong. It isn't a bug because you're wrong. You just happen to be wrong, but you can't seem to concede the point.

[edited to remove quote]

Do You have any proff to support Your claim that cheating could give 20% better bash timings though? If anyone made wrong claims it was You when You said quote "I couldn't reach the .333 that you can reach with macros". Do You have any proff other than Your word that 0,333 is possible with macros? Do You have any base to make a claim that it is possible?

The reality is that due to how the game is constructed and how cmx combat log works even macro isn't capable to reach repeatable perfect 0,33 sec intervals on bash in Your log.

You said quote "A human would probably be about 40% less efficient" reffering to Your compressed air mouse wheel spinning. You see I have the same mouse as Yours. I did 4 tests, 1 with same mouse spinning technique as Yours (turning on G502 scroll button and letting scroll spin with a help of compressed air), one with binding bash to a keyboard button, one with binding bash to a mouse scroll while using it normally (without the button that G502 has) and 1 with just good old RMB+LMB.

Can You guess which log comes from which test?






And before You even start guessing I can assure You that the way of performing each of these tests had nothing to do with final results since that 3% difference between best and worst score boils down to ping fluctuations, the way how game operates and cmx combat log registering method. It's also far from 40% difference You were expecting to see. Macro would be the subject to all those things and would provide pretty much the same results at best with a chance to even give worse results.

Oh and remember when You said quote "There is no way a human could reach .333". Well...



Do You think this happened because in that moment I clicked a button perfectly down to a 0,001 sec?

Oh and You also said that quote "A macro is 20% more efficient than an insane mouse wheel spinning"
Well that's interresting because I achieved less than 20% difference from best theoretically possible value without both macro and insane mouse wheel spinning



As far as being wrong goes I really don't think You're in a good place to call out others for it.

and how do we know these tests are legit?

Yes, keep moving the goal posts. It's clear nothing anyone says will change your mind.

Synapsis123

So I checked one of your parses you were able to get 2.5 bashes a second. You were 17% less efficient than a macro. Congratulations, you're still wrong.

forum_gpt

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

I tested this theory with my logitech g502 mouse with no macro and I couldn't reach the .333 that you can reach with macros.

Nobody is bashing on 333ms intervals. Not even with a macro. Yes, the patch notes said 333ms back in Update 33 or whatever. But it's not something any player can do.

If hes claiming he hit the 0.333 timing manually with high ping, that’s quite the stretch, especially after someone claimed it was impossible. Latency alone would make that level of precision unreliable, and yet somehow he managed it? It’s hard to take that seriously. I smell cheese

Bradyfjord

Bashing is most useful against channelled abilities. Could a rise in bash builds could be a response to the rise of beam builds from certain popular classes?

HatchetHaro

Synapsis123 wrote: »

So I checked one of your parses you were able to get 2.5 bashes a second. You were 17% less efficient than a macro. Congratulations, you're still wrong.

Okay. Show me one made with a macro.

You've done nothing of the sort so far except make baseless claims about a subject that you have zero clues about, but hey, this is the chance to prove yourself and show, once and for all, that macros are superior™, so that you are spared in the inevitable robot™ uprising™.

forum_gpt

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

So I checked one of your parses you were able to get 2.5 bashes a second. You were 17% less efficient than a macro. Congratulations, you're still wrong.

Okay. Show me one made with a macro.

You've done nothing of the sort so far except make baseless claims about a subject that you have zero clues about, but hey, this is the chance to prove yourself and show, once and for all, that macros are superior™, so that you are spared in the inevitable robot™ uprising™.

It’s funny that you’re throwing in "robot uprising" like this is some sci-fi scenario. We’re talking about a video game mechanic, not the plot of a dystopian movie. If you're going to make a serious argument, maybe stick to relevant points instead of trying to be clever with sarcasm. This isn't about "proving macros are superior"—it's about recognizing that automation has a clear impact on consistency. Focusing on actual facts might help you see the bigger picture here.

Synapsis123

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Synapsis123 wrote: »

So I checked one of your parses you were able to get 2.5 bashes a second. You were 17% less efficient than a macro. Congratulations, you're still wrong.

Okay. Show me one made with a macro.

You've done nothing of the sort so far except make baseless claims about a subject that you have zero clues about, but hey, this is the chance to prove yourself and show, once and for all, that macros are superior™, so that you are spared in the inevitable robot™ uprising™.

Using macros is against the terms of service. You seemed to have missed the point of this entire thread. Take some time to reread the thread and the terms of service.

https://account.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/terms-of-service

ZOS_Hadeostry

Greetings everyone,

As this thread has devolved into a back and forth, been previously cleared out and warned multiple times, and is no longer constructive, we are now going to close it. We always encourage sharing opinions, but we ask that they remain respectful when doing so.

Thank you for your understanding, and please keep the Community Rules in mind when posting on the forums.