iMatt

I can't find what was changed, can I get some help here? Thanks Matt

T'was a large inactive.

Yeah, this is okay - it's not an exploit, and it actually helps expediate tech deals.

Me neither I am beginning to think I should do the same. I am currently testing my luck by paying bills daily, but haven't gotten anything yet. Mebbe I'll do the once every 3 days thing.

I agree with that up to a point. Even if we take as a given the percentages are the same as admin told us, there seems to be a visible difference between the quality of the good events compared to the bad events. I have not heard of a +5 happiness event, nor even a +3 happiness event, yet I have heard of some pretty bad bad events (-5 happiness)

I believe it's always worth it to improvement swap, only until you are able to buy all improvements at once, and then all you have to do is swap in labor camps (always worth it)

Great update, and great commentary, fun to read! I was wondering if the script you're using to change it to that formatting can include the "+" (plus) signs in front of positive growth, as before. It makes it easier to look at, at a glance. o/ ROMMEL

If he actually did do this, I would hope he would at least say something about there being a difference between them. If we don't know Collecting Taxes gets you better events, we won't stop improvement swapping, and we'll just keep thinking we get bad luck. I don't think he would have made such a difference without saying anything.

Yep, this has been suggested countless times and shot down, for many valid reasons.

There are several ways to fix this problem (yes I believe there is a problem now, after looking at multiple dozens reports of events on several forums). The main points are: - Good events are not as good as bad events, on average. This needs to be addressed. It seems as if admin has reduced some of the happiness for good events from before, and increased the effects of negative ones, and added harsher negative events. Some increased benefit with good events may be required, or a change in % good vs % bad events. - The variation in event distribution is something else. Some people are getting several bad events, discouraging them from playing the game. I'm not saying negative events are bad, but when 1 nation gets so many of them, it isn't great for keeping people in the game. Especially new nations. To solve this: put a cap on the number of a specific event you can have. 3 good and 3 bad, max. So if you have 3 bad events, and when you collect you "get another bad one" it will not show up. Same goes for good events. And if you end up having 3 good, 3 bad, you won't be able to get any more until one expires. Some events can be almost neutral, so maybe a neutral can fill a "positive" or "negative" slot. - Young nations are affected by this the most. Old nations won't collect/pay bills daily, and thus won't get as many events. If the two prior points are looked into, then this one isn't a big problem.

And it was a sad day in the life of all rulers on Planet Bob.

*iMatt15 sits by BlackKnight

The suggestion when it was implemented was not implemented in the suggested way. It was asked that ONLY the top 100 would be eligible, but now the top 100, given disallowed nations don't count, are available to vote for. Check for yourself in your voting options, see the lowest NS nation on the list and check out his color rank.

I haven't really noticed the shortage of tech sellers. All you have to do is recruit the little uns into your alliance and train em

I haven't gotten an event yet, but here is my opinion.. If admin actually did make events about 50-50, you should hypothetically get your fair share of positive and negative events in your nations life. Since this is a very large departure from the "10% on collection (a lot of people say it was more like 1%)" rule that was in effect before this change, I think it may be better to have 2 classes of events, one on paying bills, and one on collecting. 10% each still, but the paying bills event should only last 15 days, and the collecting event last 30 days. That would quell some of the discontent among players.

After all these people talking about all their bad stacking events I'm scared to pay bills or collect No really, someone post that they got 5 good events in a row, please!

ah, makes sense, thanks for clearing that up for me

How long do you have to decide about the event? For example, is it a certain number of days until you get the "no response" response, or do you just have to make a transaction with your nation. The situation I'm wondering about is: If I pay bills, then get an event, do I automatically get a "no response" response if I collect? An answer from admin, or from someone who has been through this, not from people who are guessing, thanks

There are so many smaller alliances these days it boggles my mind. With so many up and coming, I see a lot of new faces on the world stage in the not so distant future.

I do prefer the updater to get the real-time stats for use in this thread... I know it's a lot of work, and I applaud you all for that, but this thread has got to have some more stats content than if I were to just going to the Alliance Page and looking at stats which could be up to a half a day old (I think a half a day). But thank you for the updates anyway!

Guerrilla camps?

I can't think of any time where I wanted my enemy to be at DEF 1. I think an easy fix would be to have a chance of going to any defcon, but a higher DEFCON has a higher chance of occuring. So if in DEF 1, spying does this: 10% chance it goes to DEF 2 20% is goes to current DEF 3 30% chance it goes to DEF 4 40% chance it goes to DEF 5 if in DEF 2, spying does this: 10% chance it goes to DEF 1 20% is goes to current DEF 3 30% chance it goes to DEF 4 40% chance it goes to DEF 5 and so on. This keeps the weight on the higher defcons, but still puts some randomness in there. Percentages can be changed, depending on how hard you want to make it to get a good DEFCON for your enemy.

Well, it is nice, but I think UPN has got something going though, they have today's update.

I'm having a very nice day!

i was just thinking about the tables someone (bilrow) used for his stats thread, and wondering if people wanted to use it for this thread. Now that I see it, I'm not sure I like it as much as the original though. We really only need length of sanction for the alliances who enter into sanction status. (and we really don't need it, since the 10 day period is only for the flag, nothing else)