MULTIbalancer [1.1.6.0] 30-MAR-2015 + BFHL

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Kinsman*:

 

Anyone using "Enable Unstacking"? If so, how is it working out?

Heres how it works for me, if a server has it enabled, I remove that server from favorites and don't play there again.

 

Artificially changing the outcome of a round during the round is pretty silly when you think about it.

 

Other than that, this plugin has plenty of awesome features to keep you amused. :-)

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by dyn*:

 

Heres how it works for me, if a server has it enabled, I remove that server from favorites and don't play there again.

Mutlibalancer is just a tool. It does what we admins tell it to do. There are some unstacking configurations that I would not like either but it's totally possible to make unstacking very limited and non-obtrusive if the admin so desires that. To make a blanket statement saying all unstacking is bad I feel is disingenuous.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Artificially changing the outcome of a round during the round is pretty silly when you think about it.

Either way, the outcome changes artificially. Players can move themselves to stack teams (artificial) and if the stacking is entrenched, the losers quit (artificial) rather than stick around and take their licking. There's the added negative that if enough losers quit, the server dies for lack of players. What's silly is, as admins, to merely accept this situation rather than do something about it.

 

You absolutely have the right to unfavorite servers that run a policy you don't like and to have your own opinion. Just understand that there are two sides to this coin and neither of them are silly.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by wishmaster2002uk*:

 

could you please give me the best unstacker settings for retaining players and balance

 

my server setup is

 

32 max player

procon TEAM TICKET COUNT %150

metro is in rotation

gametype is conquest/rush infantry only with 12 players or less and normal mode above 12 players

i need dispersal list active.

 

thanks

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

could you please give me the best unstacker settings for retaining players and balance

 

my server setup is

 

32 max player

procon TEAM TICKET COUNT %150

metro is in rotation

gametype is conquest/rush infantry only with 12 players or less and normal mode above 12 players

i need dispersal list active.

 

thanks

You have to choose either unstacking or retaining players. They work against each other, so trying to do both at the same time won't work very well. I'd advise sticking with retaining for now and don't unstack.

 

Find the Enable Settings Wizard setting at the top and set it to True. Start with Conquest and fill in the form that is shown, including setting Preferred Style Of Balancing to Retain, then set Apply Settings Changes to True. Then do the same steps again for Rush.

 

When you say dispersal list active, what do you mean? Is there one clan tag that needs to be divided evenly between teams? If so, what is that tag?

 

Finally, make sure Enable Unstacking is set to False

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by wishmaster2002uk*:

 

no i have 2 players on the dispersal list i need to keep apart.

 

do you mean use the wizard and then use the wizard again to overwrite the first setup it does ?

 

i just need the teams to be as balanced as possible maybe by kd as the 2 players on dispersal have very good kd per round

 

so therefore i use dispersal to keep them apart but i also want all other players balanced fairly by kdr or spm i guess.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

no i have 2 players on the dispersal list i need to keep apart.

Okay, that's fine. Just put each of their names on separate lines in Disperse Evenly List and after you have run the wizards (see below), find the Conquest section and set Enable Disperse Evenly List to True and then do the same thing for Rush.

 

do you mean use the wizard and then use the wizard again to overwrite the first setup it does ?

The wizard only sets one mode at a time, that's why the first question in the wizard form is Which Mode?. You said you run both Conquest (large or small_) and Rush. First you set Conquest and apply the new settings, then you set Rush and apply the new settings. When you set Rush, it doesn't affect Conquest, or anything else for that matter.

 

i just need the teams to be as balanced as possible maybe by kd as the 2 players on dispersal have very good kd per round

 

so therefore i use dispersal to keep them apart but i also want all other players balanced fairly by kdr or spm i guess.

That's fine, you get to choose that after you run the Wizard on each mode. When the wizard changes are done, find the Conquest section and set Determine Strong Players By to whatever you want. For now, stick with the settings that start "Round", like "RoundSPM". That's simpler than using the Battlelog settings, which require more setup.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by wishmaster2002uk*:

 

thanks

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by jking54*:

 

This is due to not every map having the same max tickets. Some have 300, some 200, some 350, etc. So unless you are running a plugin that forces each map to have exactly 1000 tickets, or you only run one map, or you only run maps that have the same max, you need to specify a different highest max and the lowest max. So for example, if you have one map that is 300 and another than is 350, you highest would be 350 and your lowest 300. If you have gameModeCounter set to 200, then your high would be 700 and your low 600.

 

If all your maps have the same max, just use the same number for high and low.

 

Make sense?

 

See this table for all the maps and their max tickets:

 

myrcon.net/.../table-of-starting-ticket-counts-vs-varsgamemodecounter-and-factions-by-map

Ok PC I'll take a look at that link, currently I'm running at 286% tickets, so for instance Metro will be exactly 1000 tickets, but say Davamand would be 857 and so on. Now, currently I'm running TDM so with my 286% then max would be then 286, min 100.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by JAGUAR1950*:

 

Any one having this problem:

 

Since the R39 update for some reason the PRoCon MULTIbalancer has stopped working correctly and we are now getting this error:

 

: System.IO.DirectoryNotFoundException: Could not find a part of the path 'C:\RackageAutoServers\GameServers\TC4230 4446227544818868003\Logs\193.93.45.211_47400\20130 922_000_2-Operation_Riverside-CL0_tlr.csv'.

at System.IO.__Error.WinIOError(Int32 errorCode, String maybeFullPath)

at System.IO.FileStream.Init(String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, Int32 rights, Boolean useRights, FileShare share, Int32 bufferSize, FileOptions options, SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES secAttrs, String msgPath, Boolean bFromProxy)

at System.IO.FileStream..ctor(String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share, Int32 bufferSize, FileOptions options, String msgPath, Boolean bFromProxy)

at System.IO.FileStream..ctor(String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share)

at PRoConEvents.MULTIbalancer.UpdateTicketLossRateLog (DateTime now, Int32 strong, Int32 weak)

 

Sent a Ticket to my server provider @ Rackage and received this reply:

 

From: Rackage Ltd Support [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 22 September 2013 23:32

To: MICHAEL OSBORNE

Subject: [Ticket ID: 915672] PRoCon MULTIbalancer

 

 

 

afraid it will be awaiting an update looking at that.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by TimSad*:

 

Does this plugin really need to be as complicated as it is/seems? I don't need all these random features. I'm trying to find a balancer that is simple and straight to the point that won't weigh down the performance of my Procon layers. I've started writing one myself but don't really want to continue if not necessary. I also started writing my own because I don't want a balancer that is dependent on fetching data from Battlelog.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Chilace*:

 

Does this plugin really need to be as complicated as it is/seems? I don't need all these random features. I'm trying to find a balancer that is simple and straight to the point that won't weigh down the performance of my Procon layers. I've started writing one myself but don't really want to continue if not necessary. I also started writing my own because I don't want a balancer that is dependent on fetching data from Battlelog.

Take a look on that topic. showthread....-life-balancer*

Maybe that suits you best.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by TimSad*:

 

I'll take a look. Thanks!

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Does this plugin really need to be as complicated as it is/seems? I don't need all these random features. I'm trying to find a balancer that is simple and straight to the point that won't weigh down the performance of my Procon layers. I've started writing one myself but don't really want to continue if not necessary. I also started writing my own because I don't want a balancer that is dependent on fetching data from Battlelog.

MULTIbalancer isn't for everyone and I do hope you find something that works for you.

 

That said, I need to clear up some misconceptions suggested by your post.

 

* MULTIbalancer does not "weigh down the performance of" a Procon layer. At least, I have seen no evidence that would support that statement. It was specifically designed to avoid the mistakes of other plugins that have impacted performance.

 

* MULTIbalancer doesn't depend on fetching data from Battlelog. Indeed, that feature was added after the core implementation was completed and tested. Default settings do not use Battlelog other than to get a player's clan tag, and that can be disabled. Other, more time-consuming stats require user opt-in by changing default settings.

 

There's no denying that MB is packed with features. That being the case, several short-cuts and simplifications were added to lower the barrier to entry. Post #875* above outlines the very short list of steps needed to set up a single game mode with default settings that work for most balancing needs.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Singh400*:

 

Does this plugin really need to be as complicated as it is/seems? I don't need all these random features. I'm trying to find a balancer that is simple and straight to the point that won't weigh down the performance of my Procon layers. I've started writing one myself but don't really want to continue if not necessary. I also started writing my own because I don't want a balancer that is dependent on fetching data from Battlelog.

I can understand where you are coming from. I'm using an really old version of TruBalancer for simple last joiner balancing. But it's getting outdated and in some circumstances it doesn't work as I would like it. I want to upgrade to MB, but the sheer options and configurations put me off. I think it's a great plugin. But there needs to be a way to hide all the the very advanced features. If all you want is a simple last joiner balancer.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by jking54*:

 

I can understand where you are coming from. I'm using an really old version of TruBalancer for simple last joiner balancing. But it's getting outdated and in some circumstances it doesn't work as I would like it. I want to upgrade to MB, but the sheer options and configurations put me off. I think it's a great plugin. But there needs to be a way to hide all the the very advanced features. If all you want is a simple last joiner balancer.

Agreed, great work with his plugin (MB) but just too much for what I need too.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by TimSad*:

 

Sorry for the Q's, PC9, but does your plugin here do team scrambling based off of on-server skill rather than Battlelog stats?

 

MULTIbalancer isn't for everyone and I do hope you find something that works for you.

 

That said, I need to clear up some misconceptions suggested by your post.

 

* MULTIbalancer does not "weigh down the performance of" a Procon layer. At least, I have seen no evidence that would support that statement. It was specifically designed to avoid the mistakes of other plugins that have impacted performance.

Sorry, I was saying that because I was, until recently, running True Balancer and found that along with one of my personal plugins to be a culprit of lagging our Procon layers. They both dealt with fetching data from Battlelog so I believe it is likely something to do with that and some throttling issues.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Blitz*:

 

MB is a killer plugin if you take the time to understand it. Otherwise, one of the presets can be used to fulfill basic needs for your server.

 

We have been running MB along side 10 other plugins and never had performance issues.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Mandizzy*:

 

Sorry for the Q's, PC9, but does your plugin here do team scrambling based off of on-server skill rather than Battlelog stats?

 

 

 

Sorry, I was saying that because I was, until recently, running True Balancer and found that along with one of my personal plugins to be a culprit of lagging our Procon layers. They both dealt with fetching data from Battlelog so I believe it is likely something to do with that and some throttling issues.

True Balancer indeed had performance issues as it goes to fetch stats. However, MB makes use of Battlelog Cache and is much faster.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Sorry for the Q's, PC9, but does your plugin here do team scrambling based off of on-server skill rather than Battlelog stats?

One of the advantages of being packed with features is that I almost always can answer "yes" to questions like that. And yes, it can.

 

Sorry, I was saying that because I was, until recently, running True Balancer and found that along with one of my personal plugins to be a culprit of lagging our Procon layers. They both dealt with fetching data from Battlelog so I believe it is likely something to do with that and some throttling issues.

I studied both Insane Limits and TB to learn what NOT to do with respect to Battlelog fetching. I applied the first generation of that learning to BattlelogCache. The second generation of that learning is in MB. It's a trade-off, though. While MB should never lag a Procon layer, the logic that is based on Battlelog stats may suffer, since Procon performance is prioritized over timely delivery of BL stats. So sometimes, for example, someone with a high Battlelog KDR might be classified as a "weak" player, because their stats fetch is still pending.

 

Feel free to steal my Battlelog fetch queue code. I think it would be hard to beat (until BL changes their API again ... which is inevitable).

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

If all you want is a simple last joiner balancer.

Clearing up another misconception: it's true that once a player has spawned into the game, they are not ranked by when they joined for the purpose of balancing. However, while players are still in the multi-minutes long joining phase, before they get a chance to spawn for the first time, they ARE moved for balance. So effectively, the last joiners are always the first to be used for pure team balancing purposes.

 

My claim is that this is a superior form of "last joiner" balancing, since the player joining, nor anyone else for that matter, is ever aware of them being moved for balance.

 

Of course, it also means that if there are no players joining and balancing is needed, some player needs to be selected and time of join is not a supported option for selecting the player to move. If that's what you really need, you're right, MB doesn't deliver that.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by TimSad*:

 

Is there a way to disable the feature to where the last joiner is switched for balancing? I personally wouldn't want to upset players that clicked the play button off their friend just to have the possibility of being placed on their friends team then to be switched. Thanks for all these clarifications! It's helped me to decide that I'm willing to give this plugin a try.

 

How do you even have all this time to put into this stuff. I've seen an influx of you contributing here and have wondered that. I've only really had the time to do a few of these plugins that I've published here and a few other small ones on the side. Anyway, thanks!

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by ColColonCleaner*:

 

Is there a way to disable the feature to where the last joiner is switched for balancing? I personally wouldn't want to upset players that clicked the play button off their friend just to have the possibility of being placed on their friends team then to be switched. Thanks for all these clarifications! It's helped me to decide that I'm willing to give this plugin a try.

 

How do you even have all this time to put into this stuff. I've seen an influx of you contributing here and have wondered that. I've only really had the time to do a few of these plugins that I've published here and a few other small ones on the side. Anyway, thanks!

This. I can't begin to say how many times i've joined on someone just to be placed on the other team after a few seconds.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by dyn*:

 

How do you even have all this time to put into this stuff. I've seen an influx of you contributing here and have wondered that.

NOOOOO!! Don't ask how folks put the time they put in, just be thankful they do. Last time someone asked me about that I took a couple week break from my group. Let's hope we don't scare people off! lol.

 

 

Though now that I want to I can't find it... while not as seamless isn't there a limit which allows players to be grouped together and request for each other to be moved together? Or was it a suggestion to keep friends together for MB? My google-fu has failed me.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Is there a way to disable the feature to where the last joiner is switched for balancing? I personally wouldn't want to upset players that clicked the play button off their friend just to have the possibility of being placed on their friends team then to be switched.

No, I'd have to add another setting for that, which is how stuff gets so complicated. FWIW, one of the causes of gross imbalance is exactly the party-join feature. If you've ever wondered how a server (without MB, but some other balancer and autobalance enabled) ends up 20 vs 14 and a 21st player gets added to the US team, that's why.

 

EDIT: Hmm, what I could do, without adding complexity, is apply the existing Minutes After Joining exclusion to team switching. Then a party-joining player would have a shot at switching to the other team to be with a friend, if the stars align. Better than nothing. I'll add it to the backlog.

 

How do you even have all this time to put into this stuff. I've seen an influx of you contributing here and have wondered that. I've only really had the time to do a few of these plugins that I've published here and a few other small ones on the side.

Forum stuff is a few minutes a day, no biggy. Usually do forum stuff over breakfast. Coding is another matter. MB basically took all my free-time/vacation-time/hobby-time/tv-time/game-time for a few weeks. Not family-time, though, that always comes first.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

This. I can't begin to say how many times i've joined on someone just to be placed on the other team after a few seconds.

That wouldn't happen. You'd join on your friend and you'd end up on the other team without ever having been on your friend's team. Exactly the same thing happens if a 64 slot server has 63 players and your friend is on the team with 32 players. It would be indistinguishable from the player's point of view.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Though now that I want to I can't find it... while not as seamless isn't there a limit which allows players to be grouped together and request for each other to be moved together? Or was it a suggestion to keep friends together for MB? My google-fu has failed me.

There's a limit that provides a @recruit command that will move a friend from the other team into your squad.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Singh400*:

 

It's frustrates me as a player that many admins don't take the time and effort to properly setup this plugin. Nothing drives me quicker from a server than MB being ill configured. I've only come across two places where it was properly configured and didn't punish players for being good. 11clan and {UN}. I've stopped playing on Xtra's servers altogether. And now one of my favourite TDM servers uses this plugin - Play4Fun. Except they have it setup super aggressively. Last night it balanced 3-4 times in a round (1000 tickets) each time moving at least 4-5 players. One player complained that he was moved twice..! Each time the difference in tickets was only 100~.

 

One round:-

 

Another round:-

 

And I wish you would incorporate last joiner balancing into this. I know you don't like it, but balancing in game should be done by last joiner because it applies to everyone and it's the most fair. Whereas MB currently picks on good/strong players. "Bad" players can play uninterrupted. I have no problems with balancing and unstacking. But save that for end of round, not during.

 

I think many admins are deploying this in a install and forget manner, if so. Then the default settings should be lenient as possible.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

It's frustrates me as a player that many admins don't take the time and effort to properly setup this plugin. Nothing drives me quicker from a server than MB being ill configured. I've only come across two places where it was properly configured and didn't punish players for being good. 11clan and {UN}. I've stopped playing on Xtra's servers altogether. And now one of my favourite TDM servers uses this plugin - Play4Fun. Except they have it setup super aggressively. Last night it balanced 3-4 times in a round (1000 tickets) each time moving at least 4-5 players. One player complained that he was moved twice..! Each time the difference in tickets was only 100~.

 

One round:-

 

Another round:-

 

And I wish you would incorporate last joiner balancing into this. I know you don't like it, but balancing in game should be done by last joiner because it applies to everyone and it's the most fair. Whereas MB currently picks on good/strong players. "Bad" players can play uninterrupted. I have no problems with balancing and unstacking. But save that for end of round, not during.

 

I think many admins are deploying this in a install and forget manner, if so. Then the default settings should be lenient as possible.

For the record:

 

* The defaults favor LOW impact: Unstacking is disabled, no scrambling, no balancing happens at the end of the round (last 100 tickets of a 300 ticket map) or if the server population is low (16 or less on a 64 slot server), and most important of all for your points, only weak players are moved for balance (bottom 50% of team by RoundScore).

 

* Note that all but one of the moves you screenshotted were unstacking moves, not balancing moves. Meaning that Unstacking was enabled (opt-in) by the admin running the server.

 

* Unstacking moves both strong and weak players. It's a swap, strong moved to the losing side, weak moved to the winning side. A second strong won't be moved until the first weak player is moved.

 

* The only time a player can be moved twice in one round is if they are targeted for dispersal, on a list or by rank (Colonel 100). All that is off by default.

 

You are absolutely encouraged to give feedback to admins about what settings you like and don't like, but don't blame the plugin. It's designed to "do the right thing" in the lazy admin case.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Blitz*:

 

Perfect analogy.... Don't blame the car, blame the drunk driver.