I feel like making a bot that plays for you wouldn't be too difficult. Is this against the rules?

1) Yes, it's against the rules unless you use the Warzone AI framework (https://www.warzone.com/blog/index.php/2016/02/the-warlight-ai-goes-open-source/)
2) This already exists for Members. You can just Run Autopilot (w/o Committing), have it play the cards, and then remove its deploy/attack orders to replace with your own.

2) This already exists for Members. You can just Run Autopilot (w/o Committing), have it play the cards, and then remove its deploy/attack orders to replace with your own.

But that doesn't solve the sanction game one because it's just so many turns until it will finish so if you could click something that plays the AI in the background for you that would solve it. But I am unsure if any of the current AI would play it correctly.

Doing the math to see if the game can finish:

sanction cards are 100 turns valid. Starts with 50 cards

Worst scenario enemies don't meet with the first armies-> 4+4+5 = 13 armies. -> this can get 11 territories -> 5 cards per turn -> 55 extra sanction cards.
105 sanction cards 10500 turns to not get a sanction -> at this time 1 territory taken and 500 more turns blocked

It seems like it can finish every 500 turns after that. It's like taking a turn every 500 turns.

---
That said it's possible to win/lose this template by the original picks (like I lost it):
https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=28412412

Edited 10/2/2021 21:14:19

It would be cool if we had Autopilot autocommit for cases like this.

1) get Wunderwaffe autocommit
2) see your 1v1 ladder rating stonk

You just have to accept that trolls will troll, and if you don't like it, surrender.

I do recall 1 tournament that had the 'must accept surrender' activated, and I forget what the mechanism was but whoever surrendered FIRST would somehow win, so you have to ACCEPT your opponent's surrender FIRST in order to lose - so who would do that right? lol

But just surrender, and if surrender must be accepted and it's not, just get booted & move on. It's not worth the hassle. As l4v pointed out, defining rules on 'what a troll game is' will become too arduous a task, it's just not possible to create clear rules on it, and there will likely always be someone who wants to forge on to get the coins from the final win. So you're likely to never get consensus on this. There are similar a lot of tournaments/games that are firmly in the grey where many will say it's troll and many will say it's an alternative strat. This is what comes with the customization that WZ provides.

IF ANYTHING ... the best you can do is ask for a better way to summarize the game settings on the display page when deciding the join or decline. If you have to click "Settings" and go through the full list of everything to catch the finer details, then imho the settings highlights are broken, especially if it's something as outrageous as as 1000 reinf cards each turn (playing in such a tourney now) or this 100 turn Sanction tourney, etc. The system should be able to identify that these changes are important and flag them on the highlights page.

As for reading the TOS ...

Seriously? you honestly don't read the tos before signing up? That entirely defeats the purpose of the tos. They were written so you know all the rules of the site before you break them and get punished. Not reading tos, or by extension the rules of games you join, means you give up your right to have a say in what happens to you.

Can we assume that this comment is also trolling? LOL ... otherwise you will spend a lot of your life deferring decisions in order to read TOS, contracts, fine print, etc. Pro tip - even a lawyer who you are paying to read, make recommendations and finally approve a contract to buy a new house will not read through every sentence. I asked my lawyer about this and he response was: "All the forms together are about 200 pages, I won't read through every section nor are you paying me enough to do so. I've seen enough of these that I know what is written in most clauses before even reading them, know how to spot what's changed, know where I need to pay attention and what I can zip over." Reading TOS et al is similar... it's not worth our time to read every sentence when we already know it basically says: "You must be a decent individual. We can ban you anytime without reason. We owe you nothing regardless of what happens on this site. You can't sue us. And we might sell your information although we also make promises to protect your confidentiality." And also know that they can _claim_ anything in such TOS but if it overrides a number of other basic rights which may or may not derive from the source territory of the TOS or from your source territory of origin (not sure on the legality or these but it seems to differ and maybe even be use-dependent), then it is void anyhow. And on top of all of that, even if we took the time to read it all, most of don't even fully understand the meaning of it all nor which ones would or wouldn't be overridden in which cases, and even if we did, we wouldn't remember all of that for every game/site/system/program/etc that we sign up for and know specifically what we're bound by or not in each case. So then why bother? Just click Ok and move on, or go without. The choice is yours. (And since you're here ... you're chosen to click Ok and move on, b/c I don't believe you've read it in full either, nor understood it even if you did read it).

Why did I just respond seriously to a troll post? smh @ myself

nicely said @krinid, I'm looking forward to creating my next tournament

suggestions are welcome

@rick

https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=28287397

I do recall 1 tournament that had the 'must accept surrender' activated, and I forget what the mechanism was but whoever surrendered FIRST would somehow win, so you have to ACCEPT your opponent's surrender FIRST in order to lose - so who would do that right? lol

Swapped picks with commanders. The picks are swapped, but not the commanders, so if you surrender you are actually killing your opponents commander, and thus winning.

Swapped picks with commanders. The picks are swapped, but not the commanders, so if you surrender you are actually killing your opponents commander, and thus winning.

LOL, maybe that was it. Which means that if you ACCEPT your opponent's surrender, you are killing yourself. Sooooooo funny. While also being a SMH moment.

Can we get another swapped picks and commanders tourny going lol

As l4v pointed out, defining rules on 'what a troll game is' will become too arduous a task

I never said this. I said the opposite of this. You don't need a precise definition to enforce a sensible rule, especially when in this case it's quite clear the intent of the tournament was to annoy people ("you got trolled").

In the real world, many/most laws don't have precise legal definitions that robots can enforce but we're still able to manage a generally consistent justice system. Even on Warzone, you consistently enforce an anti-spam policy for which you don't have a good working definition of "spam":

Warzone defines "Spam" as (i) electronic mail messages addressed to a recipient with whom the initiator does not have an existing business or personal relationship or is not sent at the request of, or with the express consent of, the recipient, (ii) messages posted to forum and message boards that are off-topic (unrelated to the topic of discussion), cross-posted to unrelated newsgroups, or posted in excessive volume; or (iii) solicitations posted to chat rooms, or to groups or individuals via Internet relay chat, via the Warzone internal communication systems or "instant messaging" system.

The TOS definition of spam actually excludes most of the things you invoke the "spam" rule against (the definition above excludes the possibility of chat spam beyond solicitation) and includes many things that never get flagged as "spam" ((i) is ridiculously broad, (ii) is most of the forums and actually something you're not even supposed to report people for). Before someone points it out, the TOS indeed aren't meant to be taken seriously- that's my point, you've already committed yourself to not having precise definitions and relying on "common sense"!

Similarly, we used to get the same excuse for "rigged games" (how do you know when a game is rigged?) but now you've got an actively-enforced rule against rigged games. Clearly on some level, you acknowledge the duck principle ("if it quacks like a duck...") instead of getting caught up in trying to precisely define everything like you're programming a robo-moderator. The moderation system on this site is already an adhocracy that touts inconsistency as a feature; I don't see why now you'd get hung up on not being able to come up with a clear-cut definition.

Even absent a precise definition, you can easily tackle the clear-cut cases where someone like Rick or Balthromaw transparently creates a tournament to troll people and provoke aggressive behavior. You already warn/suspend people for provocative behavior on chat, in games, and on the forums; the absence of a rule against troll tournaments is totally philosophically inconsistent with this site's moderation approach. Try to formulate the purpose of the site moderation system in a way that both reflects its current function and explains the absence of a troll tournament rule. You can't. The moderation system on this site is merely reactive window dressing that goes after what's visible to the moderators and easy to enforce* but doesn't actually contribute to fostering a healthy, welcoming community- it doesn't tackle harassment or even the spam & deliberate annoyance that the rules speak so strongly against. In its present form, you'd get more out of just some basic technical solutions, like chat slow mode, a black list of the words you auto-mute for anyway, and a script that prevents people from naming their accounts n****r. For all the human labor this system takes from people like you and JK_3, it leverages very little human intelligence (and at its worst, encourages human stupidity).

I really wish we had something proactive, philosophically-consistent, and at least a little bit thoughtful about what it sets out to achieve.

* kids saying "p*nis" on Global Chat, oh no! someone cheated on the ladder? i sleep. bechaa calls Ercole a r****d. real sh*t! threads get toxic and players go after one person to keep harassing them? i sleep. someone posts a copypasta that uses some foul language. end of the world ban ban ban! people use Warzone as a platform to promote racism and literal genocide? i sleep. kids spam global chat, mildly annoying its 15 concurrent users until they hit the block list button? OH NO. rick creates a tournament to anger dozens of people by tricking them into joining? nothing we can do, ma'am, but we can file a report

Edited 10/5/2021 20:19:49

as we can see, troll tournaments are so big an issue that this thread has become a "how to troll" and "request your troll tournament" thread



or maybe you're all too stuck up to have fun

as we can see, troll tournaments are so big an issue that this thread has become a "how to troll" and "request your troll tournament" thread

Someone saying "!raffle" repeatedly (this can be as few as 2 times) in short succession ("spam" beyond any precise definition) on Global Chat annoys maybe a dozen people (15 people make up >50% of Global Chat activity) until they find the block list button. That's still something people get muted for.

Rick's tournament alone has already had bigger impact than that.

There's really no good reason to not even warn someone for going out of their way to annoy people with a trick tournament. And, fine, if punishment isn't the solution, then there's plenty of technical avenues to mitigate the issue: let you hide public tournaments from people you've blacklisted, support for highlighting unusual card settings, etc. The "fun" here lies squarely in provoking people like Heihei into getting angry. Is that the sort of fun this site is for?

Edited 10/5/2021 20:27:16

the guy called rick is already suspended

Well, that ends the thread then. Glad to see the moderation system evolving.

EDIT: Never mind. Looks like the perma-ban was unrelated to tournaments:


Edited 10/6/2021 15:15:07

He got suspended for that tournament?! Can someone help me find the logic? I think its outside the universe.

He did not get suspended for the tournament. He got permanently banned on all accounts for disrespectful language in the "Do you like Light Lux?" thread, had the permanent ban removed on his main (thanks to the helpful intervention of Anonymous Moderator), got suspended again for 3 days for Nazi symbolism (the architecture thread where he posted a swastika-shaped Dharmic temple), and had his suspension extended for another 3 days while [not necessarily for] appealing the suspensions over email with Fizzer (for "show[ing]... zero remorse" and "continu[ing] to think this kind of behavior is justified").

Rick will be back in less than a week, and I hope when he returns he finds other things to do than provoking Taggy (who's just a kid trying to play a game, share his love of Polandballs, and make friends), sharing provocative content reminiscent of Adolf Hitler, and creating troll tournaments. The last one might not be against the rules, but none of them benefit anyone and they all make this place a little bit worse.

they benefit me cause I think it's funny