TrueBalancer 0.5.3.0

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

sorry for the delay in announced updates you are experiencing.

 

my ssd drive crashed without any smart warnings. have to recover some stuff.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Vailos*:

 

it isnt a problem... i think we all can wait for it... Thanks for your informations

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Shakal-hh*:

 

irgendwas kommt da noch mit dem Commander ins gehege^^ eben wurde angeblich der commander gebalanced... wurde er aber garnicht und macht ja auch keinen sinn

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

Agreed, can we have the traditional move commands (From In-game Admin plugin) instead?

for what i remember TrueBalancer introduced its own move commands to move players against the BalancingGuard. own commands were needed because you couldnt see if the player tried to move himself or if he was moved by an admin.

i will see what i can do about that.

 

irgendwas kommt da noch mit dem Commander ins gehege^^ eben wurde angeblich der commander gebalanced... wurde er aber garnicht und macht ja auch keinen sinn

commander werden im moment als ganz normale spieler behandelt. d.h. ihre stats und ihr dasein beeinflussen das balancing (skill, playernumber)

 

wie du sagstest:

sie sollten aber selber davon nichts mitkriegen. da sie nie sterben, werden sie auch nie gebalanced.

soweit ich weiß können sie auch nicht verschoben werden via procon

 

ich sehe daher keine notwendigkeit commander als commander zu erkennen und besonders zu behandeln. außer ich hab da was übersehen :-)

 

(bitte nächstes mal in englisch oder im deutschen support forum damit alle was davon haben)

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by WebRat*:

 

Going to give this a try on our BF4 HC servers but I have a question. You say that TrueBalancer will try and balance players on join so will this work for BF4 Official mode then?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

Going to give this a try on our BF4 HC servers but I have a question. You say that TrueBalancer will try and balance players on join so will this work for BF4 Official mode then?

no, you cant move players at all in bf4 official mode

 

to be clear: with balancing "on join" i mean the first move to a team ("changed from neutral to ...") will be allowed (=nothing happens) or denied (=player moved back) so it is technically a normal admin move (not possible in official) but since it happens fast players should not notice that they have been moved to balance teams

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by WebRat*:

 

Ok thanks for the info Grizzlybeer. Side note I just noticed you are listed in the "BF4 Plugin Compatibility Master List" as "BF3-ONLY OR NOT ACTIVELY SUPPORTED" section. Might need to get that bumped up

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by WDT-TardFarmer*:

 

Can anyone explain the player threshold? I have a 64 player conquest server. I would like to see the autobalancer not be quite as aggressive. Currently it moves players even if one side is only up by 2.

 

I currently have my conquest settings at:

 

cq-player threshold 32

difference below 1

difference to/above 4

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

Can anyone explain the player threshold? I have a 64 player conquest server. I would like to see the autobalancer not be quite as aggressive. Currently it moves players even if one side is only up by 2.

 

I currently have my conquest settings at:

 

cq-player threshold 32

difference below 1

difference to/above 4

using the threshold you tell the plugin to allow certain playernumber differences, for example using your settings:

 

when 31 players (or fewer) are online 1 player difference will be allowed:

us 16 players - ru 15 players -> no balancing

us 16 players - ru 14 players -> BALANCING

 

with 32 or more players online you would allow 4 players difference:

us 18 players - ru 14 players -> no balancing

us 19 players - ru 14 players -> BALANCING

 

if you find the balancer to agressive for your needs i would recommend lowering the threshold to 24. this would allow 14-10 players

 

i have for my cq large 64 server:

threshold 33

diff below 1

diff above 3

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Rawi*:

 

I think the URL for fetching player stats for BF4 is invalid.

 

fetchWebPage(ref result, "http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/warsawoverviewpopulate/" + personaId + "/1/")

the above always has "page not found" instead of JSON.

 

However, for BF3 the url is fine.

 

Also, variables for Obliteration like OB-Player Threshold/OB-Allowing Player Difference below Threshold and similar cannot be changed as SetPluginVariable ignores them. The same goes for defuse I think.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

I think the URL for fetching player stats for BF4 is invalid.

 

fetchWebPage(ref result, "http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/warsawoverviewpopulate/" + personaId + "/1/")

the above always has "page not found" instead of JSON.

 

However, for BF3 the url is fine.

 

Also, variables for Obliteration like OB-Player Threshold/OB-Allowing Player Difference below Threshold and similar cannot be changed as SetPluginVariable ignores them. The same goes for defuse I think.

hehe good to see ppl actually look at the source, but battlelog does not really care about that bf3 in the url (but you are right i forgot to change it, already fixed in upcoming update)

 

stats fetching still works even with wrong url (i was surprised too)

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3...e/272321467/1/ will give you my bf4 stats

 

the other bug you mentioned is already known but thx anyway

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Rawi*:

 

Thanks,

During my static code analysis of your plugin and procon itself I noticed that fetching battlelog stats is performed in connection thread and therefore fetching too many player stats will slow down whole procon.

 

Why aren't stats fetched from a different thread?

 

Let's say on every new joiner there is a new action to fetch the stats delegated to ThreadPool and whenever plugin needs to look for player stats it uses lock(..){} to synchronize with potential other thread that updates player stats ?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

Thanks,

During my static code analysis of your plugin and procon itself I noticed that fetching battlelog stats is performed in connection thread and therefore fetching too many player stats will slow down whole procon.

 

Why aren't stats fetched from a different thread?

 

Let's say on every new joiner there is a new action to fetch the stats delegated to ThreadPool and whenever plugin needs to look for player stats it uses lock(..){} to synchronize with potential other thread that updates player stats ?

i didnt change the stats fetching because it works fine and i didnt want to change anything not needed. sure there is room for improvement. but its not really needed battlelog is always up (no lols intended) and fast, stats fetching for 1 players takes about 0.5 seconds on a normal dsl connection. tb will not fetch more than 3 at a time.

 

you will find a plugin called battlelog cache here on the forums which was used by several plugins in bf3 when there where issues (i guess they changed their limit rules since, fetching the same player several times will block, fetching 10 different in 5 seconds wont)

 

CD did use that plugin, TB didnt. feel free to pickup battlelog cache and make it bf4 compatible. but i dont see a need for it. (it uses calls to certain plugin functions instead of locking for communication because locking would need to happen inside procon not inside a plugin)

 

btw: CD does exactly what you say but i dont see any practical advantage for handling threads inside a plugin since procon governs them anyway for what i understand (call to a function will timeout and has its own exception handler and stuff). i didnt really check that though :-)

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Thanks,

During my static code analysis of your plugin and procon itself I noticed that fetching battlelog stats is performed in connection thread and therefore fetching too many player stats will slow down whole procon.

 

Why aren't stats fetched from a different thread?

 

Let's say on every new joiner there is a new action to fetch the stats delegated to ThreadPool and whenever plugin needs to look for player stats it uses lock(..){} to synchronize with potential other thread that updates player stats ?

This is why I added the Battlelog Stats|Maximum number of players to fetch at each interval to an earlier BF3 version of TB. I had noticed that for a full 64 player server, up to 64 Battlelog fetches (2 HTTP requests each) were being done for every listPlayers event. When the plugin was first activated on a full server, that could lag Procon out and cause it to panic and crash.

 

The fetch time for HTTP requests vary, depending on how busy Battlelog is and how far the requestor is from Battlelog servers. I've seen times of over 10 seconds for a single HTTP request. But it's true that usually requests are less than 2 seconds each.

 

Yes, the real and robust fix would be to use threading (which I did in MULTIbalancer and Insane Limits), but as grizzly said, that's a lot of work for a plugin we didn't even write. Feel free to take a whack at it yourself, although I agree with grizzly that your time would be better spent fixing BattlelogCache, just as grizzly's time is better spent fixing CheatDetector (hint, hint)!

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Rawi*:

 

Thanks guys for very detailed answers

 

How do you test your plugins? My problem with testing my own stuff and modifications is that my server is always full and I don't have any other test environment where I could play with experimental stuff... It's very ugly to test any balancer in development on live server

 

I'm thinking of adding special type of scrambling that would only move 1-2 best players from winning team to loosing team after match ends but also after the scoreboard disappears so that noone would notice the move...

Sometimes I'm doing this manually through procon and it seems to be working almost all the time but the key thing is that noone can notice this.

Have you already tried such a trick?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

How do you test your plugins?

im testing in live environment :-) there was also a project somewhere trying to emulate a bf3 server. procon could then connect to that and it would produce events (spawns, kills and so on) like a real gameserver.

 

i dont know about the stage of this project.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Thanks guys for very detailed answers

 

How do you test your plugins? My problem with testing my own stuff and modifications is that my server is always full and I don't have any other test environment where I could play with experimental stuff... It's very ugly to test any balancer in development on live server

 

I'm thinking of adding special type of scrambling that would only move 1-2 best players from winning team to loosing team after match ends but also after the scoreboard disappears so that noone would notice the move...

Sometimes I'm doing this manually through procon and it seems to be working almost all the time but the key thing is that noone can notice this.

Have you already tried such a trick?

Uh, gee, I wish I had a server that was always full! That would be perfect for testing.

 

What I do is use a "logging only" mode, sometimes called a virtual mode. The plugin log shows what the plugin would do, but doesn't actually do it. That's usually good enough for most testing. Of course, live testing is still needed, but for that I get volunteers who run the plugin for me and send me logs or let me connect to their layer to watch it work live.

 

There are also Procon BF4 test servers set up for live testing, but they are usually empty. You can get access to them by request to MorpheusX(AUT).

 

As for your idea, I've done that manually. Sounds like a good idea for a plugin.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

PLUGIN HAS BEEN UPDATED TO VERSION 0.5.1.0

 

0.5.1.0

- NEW: Automatic Update Check

- Fix: Domination settings block

- Fix: confirmation msg when scrambling at roundend requested by admin via procon

- Fix: Settings for game mode Obliteration could not be altered.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by jking54*:

 

grizz ty for all you latest updates, eta on CD? Anyhow, lately I've had repeated lopsided victories and need some help...

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Draeger*:

 

Encountering an error when live testing it on a server.

 

00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: Balancing next player.

[00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: ------Timer-----

[00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: Waiting for player to be balanced.

[00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: ConquestLarge0 not supported!

[00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: Timer End

 

Spits that out when player sizes are different and it tries to move a player. However, it just continue to spit that out and not move anyone.

 

I think I may just be doing something wrong, but I can't find what it may be.

 

Is this just the BalancingGuard bug?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

Encountering an error when live testing it on a server.

 

00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: Balancing next player.

[00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: ------Timer-----

[00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: Waiting for player to be balanced.

[00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: ConquestLarge0 not supported!

[00:22:04 74] TrueBalancer: Timer End

 

Spits that out when player sizes are different and it tries to move a player. However, it just continue to spit that out and not move anyone.

 

I think I may just be doing something wrong, but I can't find what it may be.

 

Is this just the BalancingGuard bug?

conquest large is supported since initial bf3 version :-)

 

pls post more of the log file.

you can also attach the whole file. at least from the start of the round to the end.

 

restart your procon layer first please.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Ktu1u*:

 

Hello,

 

 

 

Your plugin is good, but here is one small problem. So, before new rounds will start, plugin begins balancing the teams. He disbands the squads and after balance collects back the same people, but he changes the squad leaders.

When you play with your normal squad, it is not very convenient. Can you decide this problem. And after balance - keep the previous/the same squad leaders.

 

 

 

Thank you and best wishes,

 

Russian Community 30+.

 

http://30plus.su

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by ixnorp*:

 

grizzlybeer.. Is the balancingGuard compatible with Ad kats in game admin?

 

I still see my admin able to move himself and other players using ad kats @fmove (player) and @moveme.

Even if the admin is in the whitelist, his commands shouldn't work unless he uses !tb-move or !tb-fmove right?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by furious197*:

 

i want to use the normal !fmove and !move command.. where can ich change this? any possibility at the source code? or directly in the plugin?

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Rawi*:

 

Any plans for adding commander slot exclusion support?

20+1 is treated as 21 players so it's possible that in case of 20+1 vs 19 a player will be moved from one team to another.

I think it should be at least configurable to totally ignore commander slots.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Ralphvd*:

 

Just installed, and so far so good it is working perfectly. For my needs it is working better than multibalancer. Better teambalance,faster balance, and even teams with tickets!

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Josmarco*:

 

Hey, you could implement a new option?

 

This is to include a clan tag.

 

Members of those clans that or automatically distributed equally on both teams.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by grizzlybeer*:

 

grizzlybeer.. Is the balancingGuard compatible with Ad kats in game admin?

 

I still see my admin able to move himself and other players using ad kats @fmove (player) and @moveme.

Even if the admin is in the whitelist, his commands shouldn't work unless he uses !tb-move or !tb-fmove right?

its probably not compatible. balancing guard will move players (even admins or players moved by other plugins) if they would unbalance the teams.

i would recommend to only run 1 balancing plugin.

 

i want to use the normal !fmove and !move command.. where can ich change this? any possibility at the source code? or directly in the plugin?

unfortunately this is not possible with the current version. you can disable balancing guard or move players using tb-fmove (tb-move) commands. its is on the planned features list.

 

Any plans for adding commander slot exclusion support?

20+1 is treated as 21 players so it's possible that in case of 20+1 vs 19 a player will be moved from one team to another.

I think it should be at least configurable to totally ignore commander slots.

i will test this out. thx for the idea.

 

Just installed, and so far so good it is working perfectly. For my needs it is working better than multibalancer. Better teambalance,faster balance, and even teams with tickets!

good to hear :-)

 

Hey, you could implement a new option?

 

This is to include a clan tag.

 

Members of those clans that or automatically distributed equally on both teams.

there are options to exclude players with certain clantags from balancing (clantag whitelist) and to exclude squads with 2 or more clanmembers from scrambling.

 

there are no more options planned regarding clantags.

 

if you have clanmembers on your server only on 1 side. dont add this clantag to your clantag whitelist, so they will get balanced.

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by Josmarco*:

 

there are options to exclude players with certain clantags from balancing (clantag whitelist) and to exclude squads with 2 or more clanmembers from scrambling.

 

there are no more options planned regarding clantags.

 

if you have clanmembers on your server only on 1 side. dont add this clantag to your clantag whitelist, so they will get balanced.

Hi, the idea is another, and that is when several members of the same clan, play a round, distribute equally between the two teams.

 

Now it does so you might be 5-1, when and who would be ideal would be 3-3

[ImportBot]

Originally Posted by PapaCharlie9*:

 

Hi, the idea is another, and that is when several members of the same clan, play a round, distribute equally between the two teams.

 

Now it does so you might be 5-1, when and who would be ideal would be 3-3

He means this feature from MULTIbalancer.

 

Disperse Evenly By Clan Players >=: Number greater than or equal to 4 and less than or equal to 40, default 0. If the number of players with the same clan tag is greater than or equal to this number, the players with this same clan tag will be dispersed evenly across teams. This setting overrides Same Clan Tag ... exclusions. Set to 0 to disable.