MULTIbalancer [1.1.6.0] 30-MAR-2015 + BFHL

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

In relation to the first idea with the stage timer:

 

Isn't it possible to change defender tickets proportional to the time a stage was taken, so you could have a higher ticket percentage without changing too much in the current version. You (may) just need to add a correction factor that depends on a stage timer started by the "New stage detected" heuristic

 

Example: (Tickets 150 per stage)

 

Stage 1

Start timer: 0 sec

Attackers: 150 tickets | Defenders:150 tickets

---> ticket ratio = 100%

Attackers take the stage after 110 sec

Attackers: 140 tickets Defenders:135 tickets

---> ticket ratio = 104%

timer: 110 sec

 

Stage 2

Tickets are reset and defender tickets are multiplied by a factor depending on the stage timer: 110 sec

Attackers: 150 tickets | Defenders:150*correction factor = 124 tickets

---> ticket ratio = 121%

 

Start timer again: 0 sec

....

 

 

 

The correction factor could be a very simple, linear function like this:

 

Code:

CorrectionFactor = 1 - ( (MiniumTimePerStage - TimeStageWasTaken) * MaximumCorrectionFactor/MiniumTimePerStage)

In the example above this means:

 

MiniumTimePerStage = Set by the user to 360 sec

MaximumCorrectionFactor = Set by MB to 0.25 which means if a stage was taken theoretical in 0 sec, defender tickets on new stage start with 0.25*150t = 37.5t ---> ticket ratio = 400%

 

Correctionfactor = 1- ( ( 360 sec - 110 sec ) * ( 0.25 / 360 sec ) ) ? 0.826

0.826 * 150t = 124t ---> ticket ratio = 121%

And you're trying to convince me that's easy? I understand what you are proposing, but my point is that there are very few heuristics in MB to begin with and certainly none anywhere as complicated as that. Heuristics for timing are also intrinsically difficult to test for correctness. I'd have to log lots of hours and plot agreement with expected results.

 

Rather than use time, how about per-stage Attacker tickets remaining percentage ratio? Unstack When Attacker Tickets Remaining Percent >?

 

Attackers start with stage tickets Astart. When a stage ends, Attackers have tickets Aend. Compute the ratio Aend/Astart as a percentage. If that ratio is greater than the specified number, unstack the next stage.

 

So for 150 ticket stages and Unstack When Attacker Tickets Remaining Percent > set to 90%, any time the attackers finish a stage with more than 135 tickets remaining triggers an unstack the next stage, because 135/150 == 90%. For 75 ticket stages and 90%, any time the Attackers finish with more than 67 tickets, the next stage will be unstacked. Obviously, this doesn't apply to the last stage.

 

Much simpler, right?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by AgentHawk*:

 

You've seen my second post? One page earlier...

 

[18:26:22 43] [MULTIbalancer]:2 FINAL STATUS FOR PREVIOUS ROUND:

[18:26:22 43] [MULTIbalancer]:0 Status: Map = Paracel Storm, mode = Team Deathmatch, time in round = 00:15:18, tickets = 400/352 -> [400]

[18:26:22 43] [MULTIbalancer]:0 Status: Ticket difference = 48, ticket ratio percentage is 114%

[18:26:22 43] [MULTIbalancer]:0 Status: 0/16 raged, 14 reassigned, 0 balanced, 0 unstacked, 0 unswitched, 15 excluded, 45 exempted, 0 failed; of 835 TOTAL

[18:26:22 43] [MULTIbalancer]:0 Status: Team counts [63] = 31(US) vs 32(CN), with 1 unassigned, 0 commanders, 0 spectators

[18:26:22 43] [MULTIbalancer]:2 +------------------------------------------------+

 

 

 

[18:43:51 51] [MULTIbalancer]:2 FINAL STATUS FOR PREVIOUS ROUND:

[18:43:51 51] [MULTIbalancer]:0 Status: Map = Paracel Storm, mode = Team Deathmatch, time in round = 00:16:08, tickets = 355/400 -> [400]

[18:43:51 51] [MULTIbalancer]:0 Status: Ticket difference = 45, ticket ratio percentage is 113%

[18:43:51 51] [MULTIbalancer]:0 Status: 0/22 raged, 13 reassigned, 0 balanced, 0 unstacked, 0 unswitched, 0 excluded, 0 exempted, 0 failed; of 751 TOTAL

[18:43:51 51] [MULTIbalancer]:0 Status: Team counts [62] = 32(US) vs 30(CN), with 1 unassigned, 0 commanders, 0 spectators

[18:43:51 51] [MULTIbalancer]:2 +------------------------------------------------+

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

You've seen my second post? One page earlier...

Yes. Same question and suggestions as I posted.

 

Notice that you have 0 balancing and 0 unstacking moves. That's due to the comments I made previously, or, due to the server being full. If the server is full the whole round, MB can't help.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by ColColonCleaner*:

 

Is there a reason the balancer is moving people (4 or 5 at times) "for balance" within the first 10-15 seconds of every round? How can this be fixed?

 

The scrambler is set to go well before the round starts.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Talzac*:

 

Hi, tomorrow is CtF day! We will mix rush and capture the flag on our server, will you update this plug-in until the Second assault release? (18/2)

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Is there a reason the balancer is moving people (4 or 5 at times) "for balance" within the first 10-15 seconds of every round? How can this be fixed?

 

The scrambler is set to go well before the round starts.

Doesn't sound like expected behavior. I need Debug Level 7 logs and your full set of settings to understand what's going on.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Hi, tomorrow is CtF day! We will mix rush and capture the flag on our server, will you update this plug-in until the Second assault release? (18/2)

Yes, once I have all of the DLC information. It might take a day or two.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Talzac*:

 

what happens if I add the game mode now and multibalancer is active?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

what happens if I add the game mode now and multibalancer is active?

I'm not sure, having never tested that. What is supposed to happen is that any unrecognized game mode will have a Unknown or New Mode set of settings in Section 8. It will be a minimal set of generic settings, like Only Move Weak Players and Definition Of High Population For Players >=.

 

This won't work for CTF, though, since the generic settings assume that the mode is based on tickets. CTF is based on time and/or flags capped.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Talzac*:

 

So perhaps we should disable the multibalancer then until you have this figured out?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

So perhaps we should disable the multibalancer then until you have this figured out?

If you are running CTF exclusively, yes. If you are running a mix with CTF, you may be able to disable just CTF by doing the following in the Unknown or New Mode section:

 

Percent Of Top Of Team Is Strong: 100

Only Move Weak Players: True

 

That defines all players as Strong and then says only move weak players, so no players should be moved. If you have Unstacking enabled, also set:

 

Max Unstacking Swaps Per Round: 0

 

That will disable unstacking for CTF.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by kcuestag*:

 

Hey PapaCharlie9,

 

Can we get a late phase added for Operation Metro 2014 (Like in Battlefield 3)? Or will the Metro adjustment work in current version?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Hey PapaCharlie9,

 

Can we get a late phase added for Operation Metro 2014 (Like in Battlefield 3)? Or will the Metro adjustment work in current version?

I'm working on an update to MB, give me a day or two.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by kcuestag*:

 

I'm working on an update to MB, give me a day or two.

Fair enough, thanks!

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

IMPORTANT: I was not able to find any test servers running the new BF4 CTF maps. Rather than delay this update for BF4 patch R26, I'm releasing it without any testing of CTF mode settings or the new Rush maps. If there are major problems with either of those additions, please let me know ASAP.

 

Other changes are summarized here:

myrcon.net/...multibalancer-30-mar-2015-bfhl#entry33580

 

HexaCanon, take note of the new unstacking option.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Pale*:

 

from v 1.1.1.0

 

[23:13:03 97] Compiling MULTIbalancer... Exception

[23:13:03 97] System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Index was out of range. Must be non-negative and less than the size of the collection.

Parameter name: startIndex

at System.String.Insert(Int32 startIndex, String value)

at PRoCon.Core.Plugin.PluginManager.BuildPluginSource (FileInfo pluginFile) in f:\Programming\Revision Control\Git\Myrcon Pty Ltd\Procon 1\Procon-1\src\PRoCon.Core\Plugin\PluginManager.cs:line 611

at PRoCon.Core.Plugin.PluginManager.CompilePlugin(Fil eInfo pluginFile, String pluginClassName, CodeDomProvider pluginsCodeDomProvider, CompilerParameters parameters) in f:\Programming\Revision Control\Git\Myrcon Pty Ltd\Procon 1\Procon-1\src\PRoCon.Core\Plugin\PluginManager.cs:line 624

at PRoCon.Core.Plugin.PluginManager.CompilePlugins(Pe rmissionSet pluginSandboxPermissions, List`1 ignoredPluginClassNames) in f:\Programming\Revision Control\Git\Myrcon Pty Ltd\Procon 1\Procon-1\src\PRoCon.Core\Plugin\PluginManager.cs:line 821

 

running silkroad and the second assault maps all conquest large.

 

plugin does not come up

 

gone back to 1.1.0.0

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by 0BanZai0*:

 

When using MB for balancing SQDM on my BF4 server, players get corretly switched into teams A,B,C,D correctly.

 

But at the same time, all switched players are put into squad "alpha". To be able to spawn at your squadmates position they have to be put into the same squad-name of their team-name.

 

Example: player 1 is member of team alpha and squad alpha --> he get's balanced by MB to team bravo and squad alpha --> WRONG. He has to join squal bravo, too.

 

Is this a known issue? Can you fix this?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

from v 1.1.1.0

 

[23:13:03 97] Compiling MULTIbalancer... Exception

[23:13:03 97] System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Index was out of range. Must be non-negative and less than the size of the collection.

Parameter name: startIndex

at System.String.Insert(Int32 startIndex, String value)

at PRoCon.Core.Plugin.PluginManager.BuildPluginSource (FileInfo pluginFile) in f:\Programming\Revision Control\Git\Myrcon Pty Ltd\Procon 1\Procon-1\src\PRoCon.Core\Plugin\PluginManager.cs:line 611

at PRoCon.Core.Plugin.PluginManager.CompilePlugin(Fil eInfo pluginFile, String pluginClassName, CodeDomProvider pluginsCodeDomProvider, CompilerParameters parameters) in f:\Programming\Revision Control\Git\Myrcon Pty Ltd\Procon 1\Procon-1\src\PRoCon.Core\Plugin\PluginManager.cs:line 624

at PRoCon.Core.Plugin.PluginManager.CompilePlugins(Pe rmissionSet pluginSandboxPermissions, List`1 ignoredPluginClassNames) in f:\Programming\Revision Control\Git\Myrcon Pty Ltd\Procon 1\Procon-1\src\PRoCon.Core\Plugin\PluginManager.cs:line 821

 

running silkroad and the second assault maps all conquest large.

 

plugin does not come up

 

gone back to 1.1.0.0

That's a Procon exception. What version of Procon are you using?

 

It might just be that you had a corrupted download of the plugin. You could try downloading it again.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

When using MB for balancing SQDM on my BF4 server, players get corretly switched into teams A,B,C,D correctly.

 

But at the same time, all switched players are put into squad "alpha". To be able to spawn at your squadmates position they have to be put into the same squad-name of their team-name.

 

Example: player 1 is member of team alpha and squad alpha --> he get's balanced by MB to team bravo and squad alpha --> WRONG. He has to join squal bravo, too.

 

Is this a known issue? Can you fix this?

That must be a new issue for BF4. In BF3 every player is in squad 1.

 

Do you have an SQDM server I could test with? I can't fix it without being able to see logging for an SQDM server. If you are willing, PM me the game server host name/ip address, port and password for directly connecting to your server. I won't interfere with your game or Procon, I just need to look at logs.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by chesterfield*:

 

Presets:

 

Use Round Phase, Population and Exclusions preset is now: None?

It was always standard, switch back to standard or is None at the moment new?

 

THX

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by FLirtY-3D*:

 

sorry if this Q has been asked... but cant seem to find the explanation section of the ...advance rush unstacking... can someone point me in the right direction.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Presets:

 

Use Round Phase, Population and Exclusions preset is now: None?

It was always standard, switch back to standard or is None at the moment new?

 

THX

If you change a setting controlled by the preset, the preset automatically changes itself to "None". Think of "None" as Custom.

 

Don't worry about it, it doesn't do any harm for it to be showing None.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

sorry if this Q has been asked... but cant seem to find the explanation section of the ...advance rush unstacking... can someone point me in the right direction.

All the settings that are specific to certain modes, like Rush, had to be moved to post #3, because #1 got too big.

 

Enable Advanced Rush Unstacking: True or False, default False. If set to True, an advanced method of determining unstacking is used for Rush. Do not use this unless you know what you are doing. See forum post for details.

I added the emphasis in red.

 

The setting is experimental and only a small number of testers will be using it. Leave it False.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by chesterfield*:

 

THX Papa

 

Is it possible that whitelisted players are not included from scrambling?

And can i say the **Scramble next round** as a Yell say?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

THX Papa

 

Is it possible that whitelisted players are not included from scrambling?

And can i say the **Scramble next round** as a Yell say?

Scrambling ignores the Whitelist. You can't be excluded from scrambling. The best you can do is keep players in the same squad they started with, or possibly on the same team.

 

Yell is not currently supported for the scramble message. I'm not sure it would work after the round ends, and even it did, the round end screen is kind of busy as it is.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by TimSad*:

 

Hey quick question! How do I stop it from defaulting players being switched to team 2? It seems to do that even when there's no one in the server. Just switches them straight from team 1 to team 2.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Hey quick question! How do I stop it from defaulting players being switched to team 2? It seems to do that even when there's no one in the server. Just switches them straight from team 1 to team 2.

I'm not sure what you mean. How can someone be moved if no one is in the server? Do you mean that the server starts empty, first player joins, and they end up on team 2? And you think MB is doing the move?

 

If a move is happening when the player first joins, before their first spawn, that's controlled by the Reassign New Players setting. Set it to False if you don't want that to happen. During testing, I hadn't noticed that the first reassignment is always to team 2. If that's so, I'll have to fix it. You can tell for sure with Debug Level set to 4. The type of each move and the destination will be shown in the log.

 

If you mean at some later time all players are getting moved to team 2 and no one is left on team 1, I can't imagine what would do that.

 

If you mean some players always seem to get moved to team 2, that might be because of some kind of Dispersal setting, particularly group dispersal, controlled by Enable Disperse Evenly List and the Disperse Evenly List.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by ColColonCleaner*:

 

Feature request. Balance offset. On both old and new metro, the RU team is favored by the map. An option to make the US team marginally stronger to balance it would be nice.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Feature request. Balance offset. On both old and new metro, the RU team is favored by the map. An option to make the US team marginally stronger to balance it would be nice.

Yeah, there was a discussion about the same idea back in the BF3 days. You mean a player count offset, like make it 32 US vs. 28 RU or something like that, right?

 

A kill rate limiter might make more sense. Punish the pros!

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by ColColonCleaner*:

 

Yeah, there was a discussion about the same idea back in the BF3 days. You mean a player count offset, like make it 32 US vs. 28 RU or something like that, right?

 

A kill rate limiter might make more sense. Punish the pros!

not a player offset, a metric offset, just like you balance the teams, balance them with an offset so one team has more good players.