Skip to content
TORNLIFE More

Halflernation: forum

Halflernation [847751] Level 100 Naughty Souls $3xy Naughty Soul

Forum posts (Torn's count)
343 observed
Archived posts
120
Threads started (archived)
4

Boards

From the 120 newest archived posts.

Threads started

Most-liked posts

Likes as archived at fetch time, adjusted for how long each post had been up. Scored posts only; the full score pass runs after the import.

Player managed API permissions · · 14 likes

Idea:
Implement per-key access permissions (simple on/off) in order to control which types of data are available to be accessed personal user fields/data.
EDIT: e.g. USER / Available fields: networth, bazaar, display, inventory, hof, travel, events, messages, education, medals, honors, notifications, personalstats, workstats, crimes, icons, cooldowns, money, perks, battlestats, bars, profile, basic, attacks, attacksfull, revives, revivesfull, stocks, properties, jobpoints, merits, refills, discord, gym, timestamp
One can `allow` a given access key to have access to the `root` (User) field plus: `bars`, `profile`, `cooldowns`, `refills`.

Goal:
Allow for greater privacy whilst giving space for value-added tools through API implementations.

Concept:
Each player is able to have more than one api access key (a limit can be imposed of course, even a small limit like 2 or 3).

A player has the ability to manage which types of data/fields a given api key has access to.

E.g. player statistics: one can choose to disclose 'bars' and 'cooldowns' but block access to all other fields (other than parent).

Benefits:
Avoid the downside of sharing one's API key with 3rd parties (allowing access to ALL data).
Be in control of what data is gathered.
Tools can get the exact data they need without having access to more private data.
Tool developers and users trust in each other is increased. In turn, spurring more development with more players willing to give access of certain (and only some) data.

Impact:
Depending on implementation, number of API calls may increase as the total amount of calls allowed for a single player.
Say: if a given player has 2 (two) api access keys and both are being used by external programmes, currently the max calls/sec are per key. This effectively has the potential to double the number of calls being made to the api endpoint.


Apologies I'm on a phone writting this, is the concept clear and why this benefits the community in the sense that it allows players to control which data stays private? (In turn opening up some data to a given end to tools/developers).
EDIT: typos and syntax. minor additions.

H+

BET - Will PK / Vinerri launch a DB? · · 12 likes

Bet on the successful outcome PK/Vinerri

The Story So Far

TL:DR

SMTH posted the following: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=9&t=16177976&b=0&a=0

You can read through it but essentially this triggered MMCP to raid Vinerri due to the unfair tactics the latter has employed over a single faction, showing some venom to the snake.

PK/Vinerri in turn, with both SMTH and MMCP raiding his side, has come out with: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=9&t=16179575&b=0&a=0

Essentially calling for a drop of a DB on either SMTH or MMCP, the first to go over 60k respect damage to be the target of said DB.

So in true Torn fashion: let's put our money where our mouth is and Bet on it!

Time is LIMITED as existingly SMTH is at 53,532 respect and MMCP is at 58,333 at the time of writting.

Rules
  • Posts must include only one of the potential outcomes outlined below (same as voting options)
  • Editing posts is not allowed. This may disqualify you from any winnings
  • Participants from factions Vinerri, MMCP, SMTH is NOT allowed.
  • Betting ENDS once a DB is launched or at the time of one of the factions crosses 60k respect +24h, taken as TCT.
  • My word on previous item is final.
You commit to Bet $5 million by posting an outcome.


How to Bet

Posting in this Thread is a COMMITMENT to Bet.

Bet amount is FIXED at: $5 million.

How winnings are distributed:
Winnings are distributed evenly from the pot to all successful bettors.

Any questions?
Please send them via email or new thread (so not to post too much gibberish on this one).

H

Do not send money immediately. If you lose the bet you'll be asked to send it at a designated time.

I do not take responsibility for money that gets mugged if you send it at a time I have not asked for. I'm trying to just be a facilitator to this exciting drama development.

EDIT: I forgot to mention there will be a shame thread for those who do not honour their bet commitments spoiling all fun to everyone.
Participants involved from Vinerri, MMCP, or SMTH are not allowed.

EDIT2: Bet amount changed to $5m as per suggestions received.
Voting is purely for entertainment. If you do not Post you are not Betting on an outcome.

EDIT3: Added Rule condition that Betting Period ends after 24h TCT either faction crossing 60k respect (this is to consider sufficient time for a DB to be launched).

EDIT4: I changed the line "You commit to Bet $5 million by posting an outcome." as it still referenced $10 million instead of $5 million.

EDIT5: changed line to "Posts must include only one of the potential outcomes outlined below (same as voting options)" as voting options appear on bottom of post and not top.

EDIT6: Clarification: as there is a forced delay in launching a DB after another, in the eventually of a DB to be launched there will be a minimum of 6h wait (is it 6h?) in order to check for a potential second DB. Thus covering for the scenario of "DB on Both MMCP and SMTH".

BET - Will PK / Vinerri launch a DB? · · 4 likes

Funds received:
  • Halflernation: yes
  • Stockboy: yes
  • Ninivah: yes
  • Qs_Mulianzhi: No. Chasing.
  • A_Mean_Person: Yes
  • KermodeBear: Yes
  • Zeeeman: Yes
One final to pay and will distribute winnings.

Cheers.

Faction API armorynewsfull user id escape · · 2 likes

Hello,

Your API responds with differentiated escaping on "user_id" / "user profile url" when calling:

https://api.torn.com/faction/[faction_nr]?selections=armorynewsfull&key=[api_key]

The differentiated output is observable upon "points" movement reporting.
All reporting includes URL string escaping, whilst when reporting points usage, no URL escaping is present.

Example output:

"361642620": {
     "timestamp": 1585079100,
     "news": "<a href = \"http://www.torn.com/profiles.php?XID=[user_id]\">[user_name]</a> used                one of the faction's Ecstasy items."
},
		"361655480": {
     "timestamp": 1585083900,
     "news": "<a href = http://www.torn.com/profiles.php?XID=[user_id]>[user_name</a> used 25 of the faction's                    points to refill their energy."
		}

Faction API armorynewsfull user id escape · · 1 like

When was that?

This is a simple change...

Recent archived posts

[NaSo] Congratulations to Irix for reaching 20b battlestats! · · 1 like

Wowsies. Feelings in the deep end.

 

What an incredible journey. If only thinking I had a chance to catch-up with you a few years back 🤣🤣🤣

 

I will be here for when you reach your next 20!

 

 

Custom Poler Tables For Tournaments · · 3 likes

👆

Why this exists for Racing but not for Poker?

 

One thing this can create is to remove currency out of the game (in poker's style):

  • Buy-in:  X +1%
  • Password
  • Title / Name of Tournament

 

 

NaSo first 50K chain! · · 2 likes

We were so close 🫣🤣

NaSo first 50K chain! · · 4 likes

I'll hate WH0 for clinching the tittle right on the last few hours but determined to get it someday.

 

Feel for Forewarded by ODing with 2 days to go.

 

Mega effort to all for organising (that incl. you Five :P)

Pinata Time · · 1 like

IIRC: Time Traveller was a full day worth rollback back in the day. Not a simple occasional rollback (like system hangs during valentines/halloween).

So you'll need to make the Torn servers go full boom :)

Pinata Time · · 1 like

I confirm Torn just shitted itself.

 

I have other guys in the faction that didn't even know about this test raising on Discord that Torn had gone offline... For everyone :)

Pinata Time ·

No? :P

You're asking Ched to have foresight...

 

EDIT: Plus, the devs and chair are EU time to debug/benchmark in real-time. That's probably more valuable.
I can see the case of slightly reduced total benefit handled out to reduce disparity to other timezone players.

Pinata Time ·

Not ideal when the whole page/platform hangs all the time.

I'd much prefer to see a 10second period to "join" when button becomes available (with the caveat as per above: that if not "clicked" due to platform issues then it's pointless).

 

  • The main difference is your suggestion adds <#users> x <(/30)*clicks> interactions, even before the user has to click "join".
    This doesn't bode well to maintain the stability of the platform.

Pinata Time ·

Very fair approach.

Fair question: if a properly-functioning queue system is in place, is it needed to reach >500 concurrent users ?

which is more valuable:

A. Opportunity via queueing
B. Maxing concurrent attacks

Ideally: both. But if that proves a step too far, some slash of the goals will have to be made.

Pinata Time · · 3 likes

Well, fun NPC.

 

In a way of feedback: same as per above.

 

Joined first attack wave. Any other "Join Fight" as soon as the button became available just moved me back into the queue.

In essence, there is no queue or number only goes as high as 590 :)


EDIT:
As a way of feedback: the whole Torn page was irresponsive multiple times, this includes Chat (latest version).
Freezes seemed connectivity or scriptwise over the browser page. (for this particular test I ran on Safari with 0 browser plugins)

It's time. SSL nub says his goodbyes ·

Send nudes.
Or 10b will do.

RIP dafuq: Remembering a legendary Killer · · 1 like

Rest in peace 

Jemmy: a special item or an enhancer? ·

The Jemmy is a Special Item.


The Jemmy is a tool used for forcing entry. It is smaller and lighter than an ordinary crowbar making it easy to conceal. It can pop windows and doors with the minimum of effort.

Effect: Improves success rate for the Larceny crime.





Why does this appear under special items and not enhancers?

I would have thought this is an enhancer item.
But maybe, because you can lose it, it's a special item instead?

It's just not intuitive of which category to find it.

NAUGHTY SOULS recruiting, Platinum, +40 nerve ·

bump

I am quitting ·

Quilt away ?

Ranked Warring Request; Open Letter to Ched · · 1 like

Don't proceed this way. Look into other options, as I stated:

Look into options of matching given participants from each faction and only those do battle (yes it reworks the ranked battle system).
The solution you're looking at is a minimal effort/touch possible to just not have the whining going on.

I don't disagree with you when looking into this to be less impactful to the losing side if it is already expected to be a losing battle.
Moreover, by making this change, you're also allowing this to completely break your rule for ranked ranks, since no mid-low-tier faction can then climb to the top. ever. Because the top is reserved for who has the biggest d*** on the table. Not who fights the best.

Ranked Warring Request; Open Letter to Ched · · 7 likes

When you mean "we" you mean top HOF factions? who's we ?

Ranked Warring Request; Open Letter to Ched · · 2 likes

Yes, that is an unintended consequence of the fairness system.
But that's hardly something new or unexpected right?

That in itself, at least from how you expose it (I'm do not know the intrinsic details of Ched's implementation).
You cannot take the system to exist and purely give you the chance to fight someone for ranked status but then not have a fair fight available.
Again: that will be felt by all sides, but much less (or not at all even) for those who happen to live in the middle of the bubble where most factions align in terms of strength.

Nobody (well... on the weaker side) would like to enter in those terms where they would be the major underdog. At least, not knowingly, and when there wouldn't be a contribution to their efforts taking in consideration the gap in strength.

Btw, your point could be made on the OP but no data whatsoever or explanation was made. Nor a concrete example of where it works, and why, and where it doesn't, and why.

Rather than a subscribed my many "this doesn't work for us".


Can you expand more on your example? I found it a bit tricky to follow with the "|" nominations, let's give some values to things and random names and call those out.

In order to do this you can limit the amount of ranked wars a faction can have:
  • Say, so a faction that enjoys many opponents is not allowed to make 100 ranked wars a year that far outnumbers the art of the possible for any other faction at the extreme ends (and thus an imbalance in contribution / earnings)
  • You can limit when ranked wars happen: make them happen at concrete timetables.
    Make this a Torn-wide event:
    a. some may take this opportunity to advance for TTs
    b. all factions in the ranked game would be batting each other at the same time. This has benefits to limit a. and to limit outside hits.
    c. make this a quarterly event or something, something for everyone to look forward to. Get the reports for the newspaper to be able to have material for it
  • Make it so everyone can follow pretty much like everyone can follow Eliminations.
There's many things to consider to optimise / improve the system as a whole, and not only talking about the actual match-making. The match-making is not the only thing that needs changing. So I tend to look holistically to what is to be achieved and how it can be do best.

I would like to see more of that of proposals that come from OP.

Ranked Warring Request; Open Letter to Ched · · 13 likes

I'm sorry but this just read like a whine to me.
Not to say you may bring a valid point forward, but you come out from a position of privilege and your expressed view showcases this perfectly and then proposes a solution that is in effect an un balanced (or rather say: unfair) fight.

(hear me out until the end as I think you're exposing the lack of a mechanic for advanced ranked factions to fight off one another due to the fact they can't due to the inherent imbalances that may exist).

Allow me to explain:
  • You start off by exposing the aggrieved parties:
We, the leaderships of the top 10-15 HOF factions
  • And you say the obvious first as well:
factions at the top find themselves in a tiny pool


[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]Comment: straight from the get-go this is fairly obvious and understandable when looking into the top 15 of HOF.
[/background]The respect amounted by these factions largely surpasses what others have. And here is where your argument starts to break: you've provided no data to support your claim. You've not provided a distribution of respect amongst factions to support your claim that there is a bigger pool that you should (indeed, as your argue) be matched with a larger lists of factions.

We all know this is not a bell curve but we may consider very active factions, and it is true that at the very top end, there's less factions, and in the middle (or even lower) pack, there's more factions. That's just how it so happens of the distributions of factions to exist.

And I'm taking respect as an indication of `strength`, to which the system of ranked warfare does not even take it into account. So it essentially tries to make it as fair as possible. Keyword here is: fair.

Which seems to be your whole whine about, that because you are so strong, that you have less strong `frienemies` to punch.
  • Because you want to punch the less strong ones:
For the rest of the HOF, if they are lucky, they will win more than 50% of their limited fights, which means they will also progress - albeit even more slowly. If they win 50% or fewer, they will forever remain in Bronze - despite having the strength and ability to wipe the floor with dozens of factions that will be able to progress through Silver and beyond.


Comment: First, you're making a statement that just because your pool is smaller a faction is less inclined to have more or less wins. This point in mute. What makes a faction more or less able to gather more wins is how good the system is in ensuring fairness (in selecting the opponents each one faces). And this goes all the way up and down the ranks, total respect, etc.
So any faction, a lower or mid or high tier should in theory find themselves towards the 50% mark. Because all her pairings should be of equal strength, thus likely to win as much as they lose.

The determining factor should be how each faction applies itself to the ranked war to determine the outcome.
Not who is ranked better or is stronger or has more respect and what-not.

Secondly, your whine becomes more prevalent when you put yourself(elves) as big boys that can't `wipe the floor` with the small fish.

despite having the strength and ability to wipe the floor with dozens of factions that will be able to progress through Silver and beyond.


Now it's important to say that we don't yet know how sustainable it is for factions to rank up and to maintain such a rank (I haven't personally seen the impact from Ched's implementation myself nor from others).
  • You touch the point of balance:
In a balanced system, there may initially be some lopsided matches as the ranks sort themselves out


Comments: I find it quite funny that you consider lopsided matches at the beginning and not at the "far end" of the ranked journey. I believe you're proposing the opposite to what you're claiming in fact (to which I agree to some extent) that the more a faction advances through the ranks, there must be a way to put higher ranked factions face-off each other.


The question is: how?

The system may not be perfect, but it is setting out to be fair(er) than most. Even if we consider there's improvements to be made here.

But to understand what needs to change I would start with the question of:
  • What is the "ranked" status meant to signify?
a. The best faction on Torn? (isn't this what the HOF and respect count is for?)
b. The best "fighting" faction on Torn?

To me, this system came to answer b. So it's irrespective of big, medium, small fish and those denominations get thrown out of the window.

Perhaps this was clearer to me or aligned with my expectations, and the same cannot be said to others who were looking to Ranked Warfare to provide different things.


So far, the system seems to be implemented in a way that is consistent with itself.
  • But wait, what is there to improve?
I won't claim to have a solution. Ideas are plenty. Could there be a `handicap` given to factions so higher ranked factions can face off each other? How would it work even?
Unsure.
Could it perhaps enforce that only a selection of members from faction A can do battle with selected members from faction B? (instead of 100 vs 100) ?

This also accounts for the fact that not every faction has 100 members. (I mean... from a fairness point of view. the current system already looks like it accounts for this since it denotes overall strength calculations.)
My point is: instead of the `whole` calculation be made on the entirety of the faction, could it be made partially, so it finds common ground between two higher ranked factions?
I don't know. But happy to hear yours and Ched's view.

This is already getting way longer than I was expecting (I'm sorry!), but overall, although your letter is very politely written, it has thrown the logic and fairness out of the window in its essence. So I would recommend asking what the goal is with the system first.

H

4b Stats · · 2 likes

She's likely rank 2000.

EDIT: she responded aleeady :) my guesstimate wasn't too far off