So we meet again.

Back from a terrible writing grave, it's Wiener, bringing you a little something today.

Having spent a lot of time on Star Craft II as of late, the competitive spirit runs deep in my veins. Skilled or proficient, I am not, but between the brooding nature of laddering and the many tournaments that have been on (Intel Extreme Masters in Cologne, MLG and right now GOMtv's TG-Intel StarCraft II Open), there's a lot of game to be played and to be watched.

Speaking of MLG and competitive gaming, the Razer Onza - a third party Xbox 360 controller, has been banned from competitive play by MLG.

While I'm not particularly interested in the direct ramifications for Razer's first foray into console peripherals, it does pose an interesting issue. How should unconventional technologies be treated in the competitive scene? It was the Onza's auto-fire capabilities that largely outlawed it from MLG play, but for the PC scene, keyboard macros, even mouse macros are analogous if not superior in function. Are these functions severe to the point that they are unsuitable for a competitive league?

The degree of customization and programming that can fit behind some of these macro buttons is quite impressive. While the cheaper, simpler versions on keyboards or mice can only manage a key press or two, most premium products offer a much more precise experience. They can offer programming for a timed sequence of any number button presses that is fully reproducible with each use of the macro. Some even allow for mouse movement, which can prove valuable for bread-and-butter motions like rocket-jumping. It becomes a science, allowing (near) inhuman execution of actions.

Some argue that such technology is widely available, and that choosing not to utilize it is merely a waste of what is considered the new standard. Others also say that it takes as much skill to prepare and code a macro. Yet others rationalize their macro use by only using recorded macros - that which they can physically perform, to eliminate the advantage of computer-perfect timing. Their opponents cry foul by stating that macros are the most obvious inequality between players, which is only too often rebutted by what would have been the rift of disadvantage during transitions between ball mice to optical mice, and later, optical mice to laser mice. All these arguments are thrown around heatedly in discussion of competitive play.

In the end, I cannot definitively say that these technologies should be made illegal in all competitive scenes. For an 'as-equal-as-possible' approach that console tournaments (e.g. MLG) uphold, third party products are perhaps very jarring. On the other hand, the PC competitive scene has, for a long time, allowed players to find what input devices are most suitable for them. It's unorthodox for a PC tournament to disallow personal choice of headphones, keyboards or mice.

However, that is not to say I approve of complex macros in competitive games. The programming behind it offloads the responsibility, and the actions required, for the player using them. A person reliant on perfectly coded macros to play a game properly, to win competitively, is a person who innately does not have the skill to play or win the game. You strip the player of his special equipment, and he cannot perform. A player who practices traditional, physical execution of all his moves can perform his best even without such equipment.

Personally, I don't think I'll ever make heavy use of macros. However, you'll never catch me off guard with a mouse that doesn't have a 'reload' key bound to its side. It's a fine line we walk, but my conscience rests easy. Even if it means I lose StarCraft II matches like no tomorrow.