Jump to content

Combat Box by Red Flight


Recommended Posts

VA_SOLIDKREATE
36 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

 

Player airfield AAA has always been at the highest skill setting, unfortunately it's still fairly anemic, especially against fast late-war planes.

 

Yeah I used to put 12 guns (1 was a smart AI Complex Trigger) at main airfields and about 6 more AA vehicles and set the max engagement to 10,000m. I didn't know that you could make protected zones at the time. I used to like testing them against enemy AI waves. No one ever made it through 😁

 

I'd like to get back into mission making someday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
57 minutes ago, adler_1 said:

ATT Alonzo

Disconnect a bridge too far mission ,  today .

Did this player disconnect ? i short him down from astern very close straight line  and he went down in smoke , when i looked down there was nothing there . i circled the area but found nothing .

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/951268/?tour=27

If you look at the sortie logs you will see that he was damaged by Kampfpilot_JG3 and a Flak gun, and went down a minute after last receiving damage. The Flak gun was credited with the kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

REDKestrel

i am kampfpilotJG3 , so as soon as i hit him the Flack hit him going down soon after as well !!! that explains the assist . my bad luck .   where do you see in the log the AAA hit him subsequently ? is it the red rectangle on the left of the log report entry ? red means AAA damage ?

Edited by adler_1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
44 minutes ago, adler_1 said:

REDKestrel

i am kampfpilotJG3 , so as soon as i hit him the Flack hit him going down soon after as well !!! that explains the assist . my bad luck .   where do you see in the log the AAA hit him subsequently ? is it the red rectangle on the left of the log report entry ? red means AAA damage ?

Flak hit him first, then you hit him. The way the stats assigns a 'kill' is not based on who hit last but who did 'critical' damage - but its not clear to me how it decides.

I mean, bad luck not getting the kill but if he went down in the end that's what matters. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

from the stats how did you read it was the AAA or other party and not the player that caused the damage ?  what do the red rectangles on the left side of the events log mean ?  

Edited by adler_1
Link to post
Share on other sites
-SF-Disarray

The color of the rectangle tells you what kind of event was logged. Green is damage caused by player who's log you are reading. Red is an event where damage was caused to the player. Grey is administrative events, the starting, spawning of aircraft or the ending of the mission. Orange is for things like crashing or bailing I think.

 

As for reading into the logged events. The damage percent is the key. If you click on the other player's name in your sortie log you can see theirs for that same flight. In that you can see several events where the AA gun caused several damage events, each a hit or burst of hits. The majority of these hits show around 30% damage caused. This tells us that whatever that gun hit did some serious damage. Looking at the damage caused to them by you I'd guess you only landed with the MG's given the relatively low damage percent numbers, the numbers associated with AP rounds like the MG's on the A3 fire, are generally low like this. If you had landed with the cannons I'd expect to see some higher numbers. The biggest damage events you caused were those where you hit the pilot. The data provided by the sortie logs isn't exact so reading into the details can be a bit like reading tea leaves, but it seems to be the best we've got at the moment.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of removing the warnings when an airplane approaches an objective? I even understand the warning when an objective is being attacked, after a few seconds when the attack begins. The warning cut off the surprise factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
-SF-Disarray

Even with the warning attackers still go unnoticed until the bombs drop. The simple fact is the amount of information given by the warning is inadequate to reliably intercept an attack. No information on altitude of the contact for a start means it is easy to miss an attack incoming even if you are looking in the right spot. The next big advantage is you only get the 10x10 km grid for the attacker. That is a lot of space and when you add in the vertical element and it is very easy to go unnoticed. The vast majority of attacks I've intercepted before they made it to target were more by luck than judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A new command for the Combat Box Flight Following bot is available that makes squad event coordination a snap! Check out the details here: 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Warnings

This is a true simulation of facts during combat in any war wether defensive or offensive , it was vital . In the Pacific they had volunteers all over the islands with radios and message boys trekking over the mountains to get messages relaid  . In Europe they were all over official and none , the Brittish and Germans had them all up to the coast in layers even later when radar was introduced , had the early warnings at Pearl Harbour been handled properly maybe the damage could have been much less just sight one of many badly handled early warning messages .  In France and other countries they got executed if caught .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 12:26 AM, LUZITANO said:

Any chance of removing the warnings when an airplane approaches an objective? I even understand the warning when an objective is being attacked, after a few seconds when the attack begins. The warning cut off the surprise factor.

 

"Spotted" messages have a 5-8 minute cooldown depending on the target, and "under attacked" messages have a 3-minute cooldown with 20-30 second delay after the target is actually attacked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've enabled 'loose' coalition balancing on Combat Box. The way this should work is to not allow one side to vastly outnumber the other, while still allowing some flexibility, for example if a squad wants to join the server all at once. This is a bit of an experiment -- please let us know if it's working, or if something strange happens. If you feel the balancing is being too strict, please take a shot of the "statistics" screen showing current player counts, so we can debug any issues.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
12 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

We've enabled 'loose' coalition balancing on Combat Box. The way this should work is to not allow one side to vastly outnumber the other, while still allowing some flexibility, for example if a squad wants to join the server all at once. This is a bit of an experiment -- please let us know if it's working, or if something strange happens. If you feel the balancing is being too strict, please take a shot of the "statistics" screen showing current player counts, so we can debug any issues.

Just for reference so we can see if something is wrong, when is the balancing supposed to kick in? Is it a particular ratio or is there some kind of algorithm?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Just for reference so we can see if something is wrong, when is the balancing supposed to kick in? Is it a particular ratio or is there some kind of algorithm?

 

There's an algorithm built into dserver, it has some numbers that we've set to what we think are sensible values. Usually I'm more transparent than this and would tell you exactly what the numbers are, but we kind of want to see how it 'feels' first before people tell us how wrong we are without even trying it first... 😉   Ideally, no-one notices anything and the server just doesn't get into those really lopsided situations, but let's see how it plays out.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
15 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

There's an algorithm built into dserver, it has some numbers that we've set to what we think are sensible values. Usually I'm more transparent than this and would tell you exactly what the numbers are, but we kind of want to see how it 'feels' first before people tell us how wrong we are without even trying it first... 😉   Ideally, no-one notices anything and the server just doesn't get into those really lopsided situations, but let's see how it plays out.


Do you really think people would do that? Just go on an internet forum and have opinions about things they don't know anything about??? Wild if true!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:


Do you really think people would do that? Just go on an internet forum and have opinions about things they don't know anything about??? Wild if true!

 

 

We take precautions against even the most unlikely things that could happen.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
13 minutes ago, Psyrion said:

We take precautions against even the most unlikely things that could happen.

In that case, I would like an 'Applause' audio track to be triggered should I make it back from a mission alive.

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JG300_Faucon said:

Airfields are locking randomly on the server right now. Bug?

 

Is one side outnumbering the other? Could be the coalition balancer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VA_SOLIDKREATE
38 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Is one side outnumbering the other? Could be the coalition balancer.

 

I've only seen this late at night when everyone is mostly asleep. Aside from that, the matches seem to be fair.

 

 

What I do not see working anymore are the protected zones.

 

 

The D9 pilots exploit the zones and always come in way high (20k feet) and hang around just outside the artillery range, wait for us to leave and then they swoop in using the speed glitch we all know D9's have (no black out, compressibility, infinite climb, infinite AoA, zero speed stalls ect). I really think the 8km should just be a kick zone and the gun activation set out farther. There's no reason for them to that far back in enemy lines other than to troll or vulch. They know this and sometimes just hang around setting off alarms and keeping people from wanting to spawn. This holds true for both sides.

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

Is one side outnumbering the other? Could be the coalition balancer.

 

Looks like the coalition balancer is not working. We will disable it next map.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LLv34_Temuri
8 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Looks like the coalition balancer is not working.

The builtin dserver coalition balancer would needs some improvements. Can't remember which server had it, but it was a pain in the ass thing for pilots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, VA_SOLIDKREATE said:

The D9 pilots [...] swoop in using the speed glitch we all know D9's have (no black out, compressibility, infinite climb, infinite AoA, zero speed stalls ect).

What in the wide world of sports are you talking about?

Edited by QB.Creep
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
36 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

What in the wide world of sports are you talking about?

If it exists it must be relatively new because I've 'maneuver killed' two or three 190D-9s when they black out trying to follow me in a turn, or dive in too hot and can't pull up.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I am not a fan of an auto-rebalancer or locking out players in any way. Some of us like to fly one particular aircraft or side. Be it ideological reasons or for whatever reason. Using any method to remove choice will be a mistake to me. I sometimes have very limited time when I come on and I would not like to lose the option to fly what I want in a way that I choose.

 

Have I been on your server and been severely outnumbered, yep. Did it deter me from enjoying myself? No. I had choice, which is more important than censorship, which is what you are doing.

 

Again, just my opinion. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
-SF-Disarray

I don't know how much wiggle room has been built into this system they've made for themselves here, but I can't say it sounds bad based on what little information there is available. Having found myself consistently on the short stacked side in this game over the years and seen little in the way of willingness from many in the community to do anything about it at best and open hostility towards those that point out the at times absurd team numbers that they produce, I think something like this has been a long time coming. The only thing I'd very much like to see in such a system and don't know if it is in play here is a minimum number of players before it turns on. Say like 10 people have to be on the server before the balancer starts enforcing things.

 

If you find yourself on the wrong side of this new balance script thing and can't join the side you normally would, take it as an opportunity to try something new. If you have some ideological hang up preventing you from playing a game on one team or another, I'd suggest you get over yourself. It is only a game, and I think you will in fact find that playing for the 'bad guys' really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If you don't know how to work these new fangled machines the 'other side' has, ask someone for help (shock horror) you'll be helped by someone I am sure.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you find yourself on the wrong side of this new balance script thing and can't join the side you normally would, take it as an opportunity to try something new. If you have some ideological hang up preventing you from playing a game on one team or another, I'd suggest you get over yourself. It is only a game, and I think you will in fact find that playing for the 'bad guys' really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If you don't know how to work these new fangled machines the 'other side' has, ask someone for help (shock horror) you'll be helped by someone I am sure.

That is very objective and belittling to someone. I understand it is your opinion, but you are minimizing how others might feel. Maybe someone lost a parent/grandparent (or any other loved one) and is unable to "get over it". Even though it is "just a game".

 

I would take choice over censorship every day.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Coalition balancing is provided by dserver itself, it is not a script we developed. It was intended to be a test to determine how well it worked (or not) and was announced as such (see image). As soon as we found issues it was disabled. The main problem with it is that it is not documented clearly, and the best guess values we used did not deliver the expected result.

 

image.thumb.png.8a86528cd0a4d82067bf125ef989ac1d.png

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ATAG_Deacon said:

I have to admit, I am not a fan of an auto-rebalancer or locking out players in any way. Some of us like to fly one particular aircraft or side. Be it ideological reasons or for whatever reason. Using any method to remove choice will be a mistake to me. I sometimes have very limited time when I come on and I would not like to lose the option to fly what I want in a way that I choose.

 

Have I been on your server and been severely outnumbered, yep. Did it deter me from enjoying myself? No. I had choice, which is more important than censorship, which is what you are doing.

 

1 hour ago, ATAG_Deacon said:

I would take choice over censorship every day.

 

You're entitled to your opinion about the coalition balancer, I think a lot of players dislike the concept, that's fine. We tried to implement a loose balancing scheme and it didn't work. We're going to see if this is a bug in the balancer or if we configured it wrong.

 

But let's be clear: this is in no way 'censorship'. The dictionary definition of that word is:

 

 
Quote

 

noun
noun: censorship
  1. 1.
    the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
    "the regulation imposes censorship on all media"
     
  2. 2.
    (in ancient Rome) the office or position of censor.
    "he celebrated a triumph together with his father and they held the censorship jointly"

 

This is neither. This is an attempt to create a fun, fair, level playing field for players in a competitive online game. Nothing to do with censorship.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is neither. This is an attempt to create a fun, fair, level playing field for players in a competitive online game. Nothing to do with censorship.

Ok, semantics. With this new system being implemented you're suppressing, restricting, or denying the choice of the player. (or censoring) You say it will become a more fun, fair, level playing field. And it may for those, and only those, who were not denied their choice in aircraft or side.

 

Again, this is my opinion. I do not have fun when denied choice. Whether the playing field is level or not. If I'm outnumbered then it's a target rich environment. No issue, no crying or whining... Life isn't fair and there are not participation trophies for everything.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnacles
3 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I don't know how much wiggle room has been built into this system they've made for themselves here, but I can't say it sounds bad based on what little information there is available. Having found myself consistently on the short stacked side in this game over the years and seen little in the way of willingness from many in the community to do anything about it at best and open hostility towards those that point out the at times absurd team numbers that they produce, I think something like this has been a long time coming. The only thing I'd very much like to see in such a system and don't know if it is in play here is a minimum number of players before it turns on. Say like 10 people have to be on the server before the balancer starts enforcing things.

 

If you find yourself on the wrong side of this new balance script thing and can't join the side you normally would, take it as an opportunity to try something new. If you have some ideological hang up preventing you from playing a game on one team or another, I'd suggest you get over yourself. It is only a game, and I think you will in fact find that playing for the 'bad guys' really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If you don't know how to work these new fangled machines the 'other side' has, ask someone for help (shock horror) you'll be helped by someone I am sure.

Fortunately, there are enough people like you that CB is generally not ridiculously stacked.

 

There are many types of people, but let's at least recognise that, although it's best to let people fly exactly what they want, when they want, if it weren't those who are prepared to forgo that right for the sake of balance, then those who are determined to exercise their freedom would be doing so on a less fun server for many reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ATAG_Deacon said:

Ok, semantics. With this new system being implemented you're suppressing, restricting, or denying the choice of the player. (or censoring) You say it will become a more fun, fair, level playing field. And it may for those, and only those, who were not denied their choice in aircraft or side.

 

By your rationale limiting loadouts or not including the Me-262 jet fighter is also 'censorship.'  We are restricting the choice of the player, yes. We restrict the Me-262, for example, since we are designing missions that are supposed to be fun and attract a balanced player base, and having jet fighters vs props basically isn't fun for most people. But it's not censorship.

 

I'm happy to have a discussion about game balance, mission design, and how aircraft choices and restrictions factor into that. But don't use a strong, specific word like censorship to inaccurately describe the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RedKestrel
55 minutes ago, messsucher said:

Which side is under represented here?

Neither, the flight hours for each side area almost always within 10 percent of each other. Probably the best overall balance of any of the Il-2 servers, aside from the occasional big mismatch. Which was what the side balancing was supposed to correct, but didn't work as intended.

Since it never really functioned as desired we have no idea what we are even complaining about here, lol. This is the quintessential forum +11 lbs boost Tempest in a teapot.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

ATT Moderator

Score question

I noticed my score was reduced by approx 2000 points in the last 24 hrs and i did notice differences in the past as well as for other players  , what is the reason ?

Edited by adler_1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2020 at 10:44 PM, VA_SOLIDKREATE said:

they swoop in using the speed glitch we all know D9's have (no black out, compressibility, infinite climb, infinite AoA, zero speed stalls ect).

 

You are joking. Right? Please tell me you are joking. 

 

 

On 10/19/2020 at 10:48 PM, Alonzo said:

Looks like the coalition balancer is not working. We will disable it next map.

 

Does it means there will be a team balancer on the server?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

Does it means there will be a team balancer on the server?

We tried to get it to work in a fairely unintrusive manner to most people (hence why alonzo called it loose), turns out it didnt work like that and forced a very strict near 1:1 number balance, which is why we turned it off again.

 

If we find a way to get it working like we want it to, it might be introduced, until then, no.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...