All of your arguments have already been addressed earlier in the thread... No one is denying there is automation involved in macros, the combat in this game is inherently automated... Various functions supported in the UI are automated...

My OP is rational, logical, developed and my arguments are supported, all qualities that your arguments in contrast have been lacking. @Night - perhaps you are unaware that I am still able to access these features regardless of official support. Hence, my motives are to level the playing field and, as I see it, improve the PvP in this game. Again, you are missing the point. The macros that I am advocating for are not castsequence macros, and the automation involved is extremely minimal. Also, again you are taking my words out of context, and avoiding addressing the material that you have no answer for. Your "analysis" is selective and you choose not to address content that you have no arguments against. There's a lot of speculation and conjecture as well, tons of unsubstantiated claims, such as BWs initial perceived "lack of support" for world PvP being interpreted as them not caring about the scene as a whole. Try again. @Th - If my arguments are chalk full of fallacies, why have you not exploited them? That's a pretty vague statement.

Taking sentences out of context doesn't help you win arguments. Try reading it again, in context. A bit hypocritical to call me blind/illiterate, considering. @Ragg - that type of thing is not what I or most of those in support of this are advocating for - again, actually reading the OP would really help. Mem makes a good point. We can and still access this type of thing in other ways, regardless of official support for it. I advocate for support because I'd like to see PvP in this game become faster and more competitive, and because I'd like to level the field. My motives are not selfish, in fact I lose an advantage if macros are officially implemented within the game.

Again, you are completely missing the point and posting in ignorance because you failed to read the OP. @Boba - I've honestly lost track of how many times you've refuted my statements and arguments, often without providing alternatives - as I said, your argument has not changed. It is jaded and simplistic. To clarify one more time: focus macros increase the fluidity and speed of combat, both by allowing players to react faster to new developments, monitor and manage multiple targets, and because a healer can realistically expect to be interrupted if there are focus macros within game and has to account for and anticipate that eventuality (increasing the tactical complexity). Manually clicking targets only involves muscle twitch speed, lag, and how accurate your mouse is. That is artificial increasing of the skill cap when this game is inherently tactical, by nature. Here's an analogy that pretty accurately summarizes the primary argument against focus macros/mouseover macros: "I feel like we should remove all forms of enhanced transportation from our society - sure, driving from LA to NY may be much more efficient, but I'd much rather walk across the country so I can better appreciate all of the sights - plus, I get exercise!"

A point I've been trying to make - but some of those in opposition just conveniently disregard whole portions of an argument and take things out of context. Oh well. Here's an analogy that pretty accurately represents the primary argument against focus macros/mouseover macros: I feel like we should remove all forms of enhanced transportation from our society - sure, driving from LA to NY may be much more efficient, but I'd much rather walk across the country so I can better appreciate all of the sights - plus, I get exercise!

Yet another poster who failed to actually read the OP. Maybe I should keep a count. I have not and do not consider opinions which conflict with my own to be trolling. In fact, I've stressed that point. I'll quote the troll post in a second, it was clearly a troll and clearly not constructive. Compton is my last name, I fail to see what how putting it in quotes adds anything to the merit of your statement. "Goonso". Yes, all macros are inherently automated to some extent - but the ones to which most of the ignorant posters are referring to are actually addons that perform in game tasks for you without input - such as automatically identifying and targeting a healer - and that is also what I was referring to. The entire process of casting a spell is automated. The aiming process is automated. Hotkeys function as a "shortcut" as well. This can devolve into relativism really, really quickly. @Boba You still haven't said anything new, nor have you supported your arguments or really gone into much depth at all. @Th- I appreciate your rational approach and the fact that you're not simply reiterating something that's already been said. Thanks for contributing.

Mem - use of focus and focus macros is more prevalent in arenas, certainly, but it is certainly a more efficient method in a BG/WZ setting as well. @Rie - Yes, that would be a fine compromise. If they added mouseover support and enhanced focus macro support as individual components of the UI, I would be fine for that. I am not advocating for elaborate castsequence macros or any of that automated stuff.

Exactly, it's all subjective. What is not subjective is the enhanced performance, which is generally the primary concern in a competitive setting. @Boba You're flailing bro. Your last statement verged on incoherency.

I'm unsure how going from supported functionality to no functionality could improve play, but I guess if using them had a negative impact that's plausible, though I'm unsure how that would work. As a PvP healer, can you not say that Mouseover support would drastically improve your ability to heal a large group effectively? @Boba Yeah, it has been argued. Not effectively, though, and I'm only restating things because people are posting without actually reading the material (yourself included). The extent of your arguments has been - macros = crutch = decreased complexity, a simplistic and one-sided perspective that I've addressed in depth - again, multiple times. @ previous poster - for someone who did not follow the game exhaustively pre-launch and was referred to it by a friend, yes, it was a shock.

In some cases, this is true. For some macros, this is equally true. However, if you had bothered to read the OP, these are not the macros I am advocating for. Clarity is tough, apparently. I'll reiterate - Macros are not Mods/Addons, and not every macro is an automated IWIN cast-sequence button.

@ Boba - Read the OP, please. I think you've made a rather glaring oversight. Also, if a system can be improved... Why shouldn't it be? You didn't address my statement that manually clicking between targets does not raise the skill cap from a tactical standpoint... MMO combat is inherently more tactical than most, because you aren't required to aim your abilities... Are you going to continue to reiterate and rehash all these arguments that have already been addressed, or do you have anything new to add? Also: by "easy" did you mean 'superior' or perhaps 'more efficient'? And yes, the game was designed to be played using the mouse and keyboard - which can be used in a variety of ways. You could either use your mouse primarily to use abilities and your keyboard to move, or the converse - use your mouse to move primarily, and your keyboard to activate abilities. Your argument is invalid. @Thoa not sure if you're addressing me or not, but my response is on the previous page. Also am I reading your post wrong, or did you really imply that I am insane? In addition, if you had actually bothered to read anything that I had written, either the OP or the many clarifying statements I've made since, you'd understand that none of what I am advocating for is anything even related to a "automatically target the nearest healer" button.

There is nothing automated about focus macros. By inhibits, I mean that I believe gameplay is faster and more fluid when focus macros are present, and that I can play more efficiently and effectively when permitted to utilize the focus system. I had already adapted to the absence of macros before I queued for my first warzone - that does not mean that their absence did not detract from my experience or decrease my enjoyment - it did. Not because I was incapable of playing - the converse actually, I excelled - but because the combat felt awkward and clunky in comparison.

I'm not asking for any kind of automation, no. If such a system exists within the game and functions in a highly similar or identical fashion to a focus macro in WoW (if you have any experience with that game) I did not find it after a rather exhaustive search of the options/interface menu. If anyone needs clarification on how focus frames/focus macros function, I'd be more than happy to explain. @Boba Having to manually continuously switch back and forth between two targets that you'd like to be able to engage effectively is an artificial increase in skill cap, yes, and it detracts from the overall flow and speed of the combat. There's nothing tactical about it, it is simply a clunky, awkward and outdated method. As I stated earlier, I could make an argument similar to the one you are using against macros against the use of keybinds - forcing players to click all of their abilities would be another way to artificially increase the skill cap - that does not make it any less clunky, awkward or un-necessary.

Thank you for your support. Unfortunately, many people have posted without reading the entire thread, or even the TL;DR, and as such are ignorant as to what I'm actually advocating for, and why.

You act as if you've caught some contradiction... You haven't. I feel that a fluid, faster-paced game is superior to the alternative, and I feel that the implementation of focus macros would facilitate an increase in non-artificial complexity on a more regular basis, as fully utilizing focus macros/frames optimally requires constant awareness of two targets, as well as solid situational awareness in general. It is my opinion that in a competitive setting manually clicking a healer while in heating combat and getting an interrupt off would be an occasional fluke, rather than a regular occurrence that had to be accounted for and anticipated, increasing complexity. It is my opinion that requiring players to manually click a target with a small, buggy hitbox while already engaged with another enemy, is at best an artificial increase of the skill cap, and one that has no place in a truly competitive setting. Is that enough clarity? @Moom Concise and exact use of words in writing or speech. Shortness of time. Relative to reading the post in its entirety, the TL;DR I provide is a concise use of words, and reading it as an alternative to reading the entire post would indeed be brevity.

Yet another poster who neglected to actually read the post in question. Please refer to... Any page of this thread, peruse the posts and you will find that this concern has been addressed... Repeatedly. Also, society?

You only addressed two of my statements, and even with those "problems" you cited being resolved, if your target is within a large cluster of others in many circumstances you would still not be able to target them quickly with 100% accuracy. And by "dropping target" I mean your current target is deselected and replaced as soon as you acquire another target, which requires you to subsequently re-target your original target once you've used your interrupt. This process, ideal conditions or not, undeniably requires more time and is less accurate than using a focus target in concert with a focus macro.

I merely emphasized opinion in my post because you were stating your opinions as fact - I concede that's something that many of us are guilty of in this thread. Eventually it comes down to whether you want to game to be faster, more fluid, and streamlined. I could make a completely valid argument that removing keybindings from the game and forcing all players to click their abilities would increase the skill cap. After all, it would require you to develop additional muscle memory, and your mouse can't be in 4 places at once - while your fingers can be directly on 4 hotkeys simultaneously. To address what you said about not being required to drop targets... You do. There is absolutely no denying it. You have to move your mouse across the screen, click the player you want to interrupt, move the mouse back across the screen, and click on your previous target again, who in most situations will have moved. If you can anticipate a cast, you can do this very quickly, yes.. But it is not nearly that simple in many circumstances, for instance if the healer is clustered within a large group. Addressing the last post, BW employees have stated that they will probably release macros at a later date and that they are in no way opposed to them. The game was never "intended" to be played without focus macros. It is not against BWs design/development philosophy to implement said macros. It simply hasn't yet, and this thread's purpose is to advocate for that implementation to occur sooner rather than later.

Relativism. This "discussion" devolved into that ambiguous realm long ago, and I despair of salvaging it.

Fair enough. Could you elaborate on how exactly that eventuality would not benefit the game, though?

And here you are, addressing precisely the topic that leads to the least productive discussion. Your opinion is that in all circumstances, exactly the same result can be reached through use of a focus macro, or alternatively, manually targeting. It is your opinion that it is entirely reasonable for a player to, after having identified a spell being cast while being engaged by another player simultaneously, manually click on that target (the small, inconsistent hitboxes in SWTOR need to be accounted for here) use your interrupt, then retarget your previous target who has had the opportunity to: attack you unopposed and move from his/her previous location and that this course of action is as efficient as pressing a single button? You are not accounting for the time lost during the process of dropping target and retargeting. Again, there can be absolutely no argument that your preferred method is less efficient than the use of a focus macro. Now that the schematics are defined, can we possibly address the questions I raised in my previous post? If you need any additional clarification as to what it is exactly I'm arguing, please let me know.

Something that needs clarification is that the focus mechanic is not a handicap - it is not a direct replacement of manual targeting, it is an alternative. To say that the implementation of focus macro functionality would be without purpose is illogical. Things are possible with focus target and macro support that are not while manually targeting. Thus, the introduction of focus macros into the game would alter game mechanics - it would have a noticeable (and, in my opinion, positive) effect on gameplay. To reiterate earlier statements - in many circumstances, identifying a healer, while engaged in combat with another player, manually targeting that healer who has already begun casting a 1.5/2 second heal, using your interrupt (with the short delay that entails) and retargeting your previous opponent (who has had the opportunity to continue moving and attacking you unopposed for at least two-three seconds) is more than impractical, it is implausible. Now consider the practice of "fake casting" and the situation is entirely untenable. Once again, at it's most fundamental level, the argument is whether players should have the ability to reasonably engage two competent players/overcome a healer disparity, or not. Focus is not a crutch, it is an alternative mechanic, one that would significantly alter gameplay. Unfortunately, "macro" is a broad term, and despite multiple attempts to clarify exactly what I'm asking for (both in the OP and in my subsequent posts) people are still posting in ignorance. Once again, a focus macro is not a crutch. It facilitates gameplay, circumstances and scenarios that would not otherwise be possible. Would increasing a players ability to compete against healers, particularly in a situation where there is a healer disparity between teams, be a positive development, or not? Would increasing a players effectiveness against multiple targets be a positive development, or not? Discussion concerning the above questions would, in my opinion, be more constructive than endless, circular arguments about the nature and schematics of the focus macros nature itself.

Back for the time being, felt this needed addressing - it adds complexity, because without focus functionality effectively managing two competent players, or playing against a team with a healer advantage and having a reasonable chance to compete, is not feasible. Without focus, managing a healer disparity between teams or multiple players is not a viable course of action, which completely negates your argument. Lack of focus essentially eliminates the possibility of managing either of the circumstances detailed above. This thread is steadily devolving into a stage for flaming, something I was hoping to prevent. Going to bed, please try to keep things civil.

People continue to post in ignorance. Macros are not addons. I am not advocating for castsequence macros - merely focus macros, which essentially allow a team lacking healers facing a team with healers to have a reasonable chance, and Mouseover macros, which make healing large groups feasible and much, much less clunky. Ignorant people will continue to make baseless, unsubstantiated statements, as they always will. @Highfive - Further argument is purposeless, we have conflicting opinions at a fundamental level, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I believe I've provided more coherent examples and scenarios, a list of benefits, and more information in general. People are ultimately free to formulate their individual opinions, and come to their own conclusions. All I ask is that people try to refrain from making broad statements in ignorance - gather information on a subject before making an absolute statement. I appreciate the constructive discourse, both those in support of macros and those in opposition. That this thread has not yet devolved into flaming is a great victory, I think. In the end, the purpose of this thread was to raise awareness and to facilitate discussion. Bed time for me, thank you all for your contributions to the discussion, and please, keep it civil.

Without focus macros, facing two players (particularly a damage dealer and a healer) given that the two opposing players are even somewhat competent does not put you at a disadvantage. It renders you, essentially, incapable of doing ANYTHING productive. I am not of course suggesting that a player should be able to defeat two opposing players in a 2v1 scenario. I am suggesting that the single player should be given the opportunity to have any impact at all. The benefit of focus does not only apply to 2v1s - it applies to Warzones in general, in that it allows a team at a disadvantage from a healing standpoint to have a reasonable opportunity to manage the opposing team and enhance balance. To those arguing that manually targeting a healer, while engaged with another player, (which would require keeping them within your limited FOV/peripherals the entire time, something which can easily be exploited through movement) is feasible, you are quite simply wrong. Even considering you could register the spell being cast, stop what you are doing, manually target them with a click, and then use an interrupt before the spell cast is completed, the time you would expend doing that would give your first target an unreasonable amount of time to function unopposed. In short, in that scenario, trying to manage both targets would be effectively gimping yourself. You'd have to resort to maintaing focus on a single target and delaying it for a moment before an inevitable death. In conclusion, I'll concede that arguing schematics is ultimately fruitless.