As a bloodied year draws to a close, we all, of course, look forward to new battles and new skulls to crush. However, let us first remember the wars we have had before. Who has fought the hardest? Who has been the most consistent, who fought the most wars?
These are the questions I intend to answer for you. For every single user that has ever fought a ranked war (excluding ones ongoing as I write this, and possibly a few test ones very early on), I have computed their total score earned, the highest score they earned in any war, their average score, and how many wars they fought. That is a total of 48708 players who have bloodied themselves - or at least who were in a faction that was in a war. Only 32606 users have actually earned any score. Shame on the remaining 16102 who never even stubbed an opponent's toe.
My problem isn't really that they are different error messages - that makes sense - but that the names of the fields in the error message are different, so there's no clean way to check if I got an error back - there is no one field that is guaranteed to exist whenever there was an error.
The change I'd suggest is that either both errors have the structure "success" / "message" or both have the structure "error" / "code" - I think the latter is more consistent with how the API gives errors for other things, but the most important thing is I think to be consistent.
In fact, the most consistent thing would be to have it return not
So so happy about this pretty new honour bar, and extra merit. This hit put me at #444 in the best damage hall of fame, too, so I expect I will be known as a Damage Dealer for the rest of my existence in Torn - my next highest HoF rank is at 6823.
Fight log here, if you're curious how it was done. I was going to try to apply Eviscerate as well, but the pillow did too much damage.
I also managed a 12075 damage hit when I had just 7.5m Strength, and hadn't unlocked the use of Epinephrine yet, thanks to the same weapon.
I'll probably try again in an NPC fight and see if I can get a throat crit with Eviscerate applied, see how much damage that can do. (Is there any NPC that is kind enough to not wear armour? Asking for a friend...)
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the "Score" column in the RW view on the faction page is supposed to represent - I imagined it as just "total score earned by that player through hits on the enemy", in which case it should be non-decreasing.
Yet here is a screenshot from our ongoing war from yesterday at 20:53TCT:
After that, the thing ticked up to roughly 1250 or so. Then everyone's scores decreased, and it dropped down to something like 750. Right now it is showing this:
CRyPTo did the exact same thing after the war, evicting everyone on their slice of the map that wasn't part of CRyPTo. I assume OBN did the same as well. The map has been Berlin Conference'd after the war.
Not getting to have any territories is just the price you pay for being neutral. If you don't like it, create an alliance of neutrals (?!) and try to conquer some lands for yourselves.
I figured out that that was the issue - it somehow was selected to an empty category.
Probably still from a QoL standpoint nice if empty categories/no category selected show as empty, not as loading. I reckon I'm not the first person to be confused by this...
My problem isn't really that they are different error messages - that makes sense - but that the names of the fields in the error message are different, so there's no clean way to check if I got an error back - there is no one field that is guaranteed to exist whenever there was an error.
The change I'd suggest is that either both errors have the structure "success" / "message" or both have the structure "error" / "code" - I think the latter is more consistent with how the API gives errors for other things, but the most important thing is I think to be consistent.
In fact, the most consistent thing would be to have it return not
If I try to request the chain report for chain 13, I get the following structure of error message:
{ "success": [ false ], "msg": [ "This report is no longer available" ] }
As far as I know, this used to be the shape of all error results from the chain report API, so you could check for failure by looking if there is a "success" field set to false.
However, now, if I try to request the chain report for chain 1300000000, I instead get the following structure of error:
{ "code": [ 6 ], "error": [ "Incorrect ID" ] }
It seems really strange that the API should report errors with two different structures of error message, so I have to try two different things to check if there was an error. This must be something that was overlooked in changing the chain report API at some point, right? I'd really like it if error results had consistently named fields...
I'm not sure if I like or hate how I managed to get hosped three times in one fight log: https://www.torn.com/loader.php?sid=attackLog&ID=d78ce31b6353936ce3775b0e0ffd68f5
Another thing you might want to know is what were the best wars so far? This is of course a hard question to answer, but one metric might be "how many of the top 1000 best individual performances (by score earned) were had in this war". Here is a table of the best wars by this metric, excluding wars with only one top scorer:
You can have a top 100 table, including links to what war the best score was achieved in. The links are all correct, but note that the names of the factions are the current names of the faction shells, which may not be the same as the names when the war was actually fought. (So for example for the LB vs. NPO war, that was actually NPO - Strength, not NPO - Prosperity, at the time.)
One interesting thing to note here is how many people put in these huge score performances in losing wars, where the winners had a larger amount of people putting in more normal-sized performances. Having just one guy pull in thousands of score is clearly not in itself enough to win wars.
As a bloodied year draws to a close, we all, of course, look forward to new battles and new skulls to crush. However, let us first remember the wars we have had before. Who has fought the hardest? Who has been the most consistent, who fought the most wars?
These are the questions I intend to answer for you. For every single user that has ever fought a ranked war (excluding ones ongoing as I write this, and possibly a few test ones very early on), I have computed their total score earned, the highest score they earned in any war, their average score, and how many wars they fought. That is a total of 48708 players who have bloodied themselves - or at least who were in a faction that was in a war. Only 32606 users have actually earned any score. Shame on the remaining 16102 who never even stubbed an opponent's toe.
Here is one chain report with this issue: https://api.torn.com/torn/25958510?selections=chainreport&key=
Here is another: https://api.torn.com/torn/25761176?selections=chainreport&key=
This chain however seems to not have this problem: https://api.torn.com/torn/20523463?selections=chainreport&key=
When I initially made the bug report I thought it applied to every chain universally, since the first two I looked at had this problem. Now it seems like it applies to some chains - so that for some chains, every user who did zero hits will show up with a bunch of nulls, while for some chains every user at zero hits will display correctly with zeros.
![[image: i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/r7Rx2kS/image.png){kind=link}
![[image: i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/hZww902/image.png){kind=link}