Instr

Yes, I'm reporting the fact that my mechanics exploit doesn't work as a bug. Just be nice; in the event you change it please don't make it mess with alliance seniority stats.

Let's say a member has a title of "Will and Desire" (Mume). I make this member pending, and I change the "New Recruit" title to "safetitle" (previous titles have included "Very Very Gay" and "Macro-Terrorist"). The game will not update their title to either Very Very Gay, Macro-Terrorist, or safetitle, even though they technically do not have a title while pending. Please fix this bug; it's part of a nice trick that allows you to group-change member titles by changing the New Member title and sending members into and out of Pending Status to reapply the member title.

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=522557 514972|Drizuz|Valdrizuz|The Grämlins|Pink|201786|Omas Nams|Citadel of Adun|The Grämlins|Aqua|Pending|0|50|0|5/15/2013 12:53:49 PM|Financial Assistance|3343194| Apparently the Graemlins are no longer in possession of their umlauts.

from 5/16 or something grab 63) Motörhead 3/31/2006 11:57:33 PM 39,961.036 http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=7381 LemmyIsGod Nation Name: Motörhead data from today. Your script apparently doesn't like umlauts.

This is the flag that gave me the idea for WFE, believe it or not. Hellas' flag is also pretty bad, sorry Bomb.

New rules everyone: You must also post the flag you're talking about in a viewable form; I'm sure the flag you're talking about is ridiculous and an insult to all human eyes and minds everywhere, but if I don't actually know what your flag looks like we can't really have a WFE competition. Applies to Potato and Jaym.

Not going to spend a lot of effort on it, but since the new alliance flags option has been implemented we're seeing a lot of badly-designed / poorly-photoshopped flags, as the amount of effort required to obtain and put-up a flag has been reduced. In the interests of naming and shaming all the lazy bums who put up stupid or ridiculous flags into the game, I am officially starting a WFE competition. I'm not sure how many nominations will come up so I won't announce the competition format until I see what kind of nominations are made. The rules for nominations are as follows: You may nominate any flag that has ever been put up in CN. If you select a flag that is being used as an uploaded alliance flag under the new AA system, please back it up on a third-party host, because the alliance flag you are uploading is likely to be taken down and we will have a broken link. I will not accept such nominations. I reserve the right to take down any politically sensitive nominations at my choosing, but you also reserve the right to call me out for bias. I will attempt to retain integrity, but I won't be accomplice to a shitstorm. Addendum: 7:19 PM server on the 18th: You must also post the flag you're talking about in a viewable form; I'm sure the flag you're talking about is ridiculous and an insult to all human eyes and minds everywhere, but if I don't actually know what your flag looks like we can't really have a WFE competition.Adden Addendum: 8:55 PM server on the 19th: Hotlinks to CN proper don't work. You need to mirror them. While I won't insist that you repost them with mirrors, do us all a favor and let us see the flag.

not checking it for TE; too much trouble.

Inst sucks, pass it on.

I've launched 3 successful attacks against Sir Bombalot's generals yet I have yet to successfully access his XP 108 Air Force General. The chance of this occurring naturally is currently 1/64. Were the odds set to 75% failure rate instead of success rate by accident, or will the generals assassination script attack the empty generals slots?

Ardus, most of the alliances that needed a flag got a flag somehow either last round or a few rounds before. The flag run in TE is more or less highly corrupt anyways, so maybe its passing isn't really a bad thing. Except that there are no alliances with less than 20 members that really matter or care enough about the game to recruit to get a flag. What pisses me off more is that 80% of the new flags I see with self-uploaded flags just look plain awful. Not an awful lot of thought was spent to utilize the alliance flag feature.

http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_all.asp?Page=1&Order=ASC&Field=Total_Nations In this view, quite a few alliances are listed as having no data.

Is this intended functionality?

With regards to the changes in the flag system, the following thread addresses the majority of the issues. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/117500-winning-a-flag-in-te/ If there's nothing that needs to be added this question should probably be closed.

Sanctioned alliances are no longer highlighted within the new Alliance system, so it's hard to tell whether Sanctioned Alliances still exist. The flag thing should be clarified; has the flag run finally been killed (or partially slain)? Once upon a time I enjoyed the flag run because it was relatively apolitical, but as with all things and normal competition the competition became too intense for my taste and I guess I couldn't handle the heat anymore. So, I'm fine with it either way.

What happened to sanctioned alliances? Do Sanctioned Alliances still exist? What alliances are currently entitled to get a pip on the forums? What about the flag system? In TE, any alliance over 20 members is allowed to have a flag and with the complete importation of the system to SE, the same rules now apply. Are flags still a valued commodity or have they been demoted to a similar value as 5 donations?

You hit Hades only a few days after they had gotten out of war; in both cases I think you guys didn't give the alliance enough leeway to respond, although you could claim that Citadel deserved it.

Last round I'll condemn Citadel for that horrible nuclear down-declare on Misfits, Ordo Paradoxia, and New Desolate Order. On the other hand, Warriors deliberately hit Citadel twice, the first time while Citadel was barely out of war, although I do not recall whether the second time was a down-declare. This war is a down-declare. Citadel has a massive ANS advantage over everyone else, has a massive nuke advantage, and also surpasses its opponents by 10% in net NS. As to whether or not it's justified, I have no idea.

A pretty heavy down-declare; I would have thought you'd have stuck at least another 100k NS to help ameliorate the inevitable accusations of nuclear down-declare.

A broken clock is correct twice a day; unless both hands are off, then it's always right.

no text; let's see what happens

Archmage deleted; so most of the inactive AAs are, well... I think most players would like to avoid the raiding free-for-all thing; so it is probably a good idea to put alliance owner onto the max seniority nation for alliances that have not listed a leader.

I'm offering to buy donations at this point at an inflated rate. IIRC, the talking offer is 18m/300; but prices can and will be negotiated for.

Betting that by the time the Friday-Saturday update is over, Citadel still won't be at war.

Now, I am strictly not complaining, but I want it to be on the record that you totally smashed us last time, I had to donate to put our nations back together, and we peaced out on the 2nd, and you attacked us again on the 6th. At least your blitz wasn't so excellent as it was last time, and you actually did an updeclare and included a decent alliance this time (Hellas).