NationStates Jolt Archive

What happens is as follows:

Native delegate: Motherland Russian pig
Endorsements Received: 2 (Omacron percei 8, Demnon)

Invaders start moving in, after the first three, Ananke jumps in as well and starts the defense. By then:
Invader lead: Maximus22
Endorsements Received: 2 (Chronic2, Noslorado)

6 minutes ago: The Sea King's Daughter of Ananke arrived from The North Pacific.
10 hours ago: The Republic of Chronic2 arrived from The West Pacific.
1 day ago: The Republic of Noslorado arrived from The South Pacific.
1 day ago: The Republic of Maximus22 arrived from The East Pacific.
3 days ago: The People's Republic of Kilarmai departed this region for Corporate Islands
3 days ago: The United Socialist States of Motherland Russian pig became the Regional UN Delegate.
More invaders and defenders move in: (quote taken later, after update)
94 minutes ago: The Principality of United Piggies arrived from The Rejected Realms.
97 minutes ago: The Vision of Edgar Degas arrived from Nederland.
116 minutes ago: The Armed and MBH Rich Republic of Bunny Landia arrived from The North Pacific.
2 hours ago: The Republic of Whiney Wimps arrived from Sultane Gol.
2 hours ago: The United Socialist States of Motherland Russian pig updated the World Factbook entry.
2 hours ago: The People's Republic of BugJuice arrived from The West Pacific.
2 hours ago: The Free Land of Valions arrived from The East Pacific.
So then the score was:

Native delegate: Motherland Russian pig
Endorsements Received: 6 (Omacron percei 8, Demnon, Ananke, Bunny Landia, Edgar Degas, United Piggies)

Invader lead: Maximus22
Endorsements Received: 5 (Chronic2, Noslorado, Valions, BugJuice, Whiney Wimps)

Nobody else moves in, and the region updates. However:
74 minutes ago: The Republic of Maximus22 replaced The United Socialist States of Motherland Russian pig as UN Delegate.
The last two endorsements, from Edgar Degas and United Piggies, were removed from the native delegate by the system and hence the invaders won despite being down 6 to 5.

So here's my question:
What is the cut-off for the system to not drop endorsements at update time?

I'm guessing here that anyone not in the region by a certain time is regarded to not be in the region for the purposes of the update, and that that nation's endorsements are removed. Please correct me if that is wrong.

Ballotonia

well, i'd think that if someone was in a region and that regino updated, then moves to another region, and endorses someone there, with update, his or her endorsement is removed, meaning we can only defend (or invade) one region each update....
it is highly annoying indeed, you think you're safe, and then you're not.

well, i'd think that if someone was in a region and that regino updated, then moves to another region, and endorses someone there, with update, his or her endorsement is removed, meaning we can only defend (or invade) one region each update....
it is highly annoying indeed, you think you're safe, and then you're not.

Ah, a master list of nations which were updated. That's another possibility.

Ballotonia

Each nation will only be updated once. Thus, it will only be counted once per update in all ways, including endorsements.

Thus only one defender's action a day, and no more "update stealing" :D

come on, sal, weren't the random updates enough?
with this, it means no more chasing invaders around, and if you accidently got hit by an update because of the random update times in one of the feeders or rr, trying to cover your trace, you're out of the game for that day :(

are you really trying to kill the invasion game?

I concur, for Gameplay purposes it seems preferable to not include endorsements in this. From that perspective it's an unnnecessary complication of customary play.

What is the rationale to include endorsements in the update limitation? I'm not sure whether or not allowing this would affect the UN counts, although I've never heard of nations running around in an attempt to gather more than one UN vote. Not sure if that would've worked prior to this implementation change, I honestly never bothered to check.

Ballotonia

are you really trying to kill the invasion game?

I think that's the general idea. Most invasions usually end up as a griefing offence, and I think the mods are getting sick of those.

I think that's the general idea. Most invasions usually end up as a griefing offence, and I think the mods are getting sick of those.
Well then they should ban them, rather than slowly throttle them to death.


Or, you could take a look at my historic warzones idea (sticky, top of the moderation forum)

[QUOTE=Spoffin]Well then they should ban them, rather than slowly throttle them to death.
[QUOTE]

I concur with Spoffin. If it is throtteling the gameplay with invasions and defence... thats just very trite. I can accept a full ban on it, not to get stashed into a box that gets narrower and narrower.
Rules, yes, thats nice. No griefing, no spamming, no flaming, no flamebaiting, passwords to the natives.. Cool. Awkward, yes. But the rest is just taking the geist out of the game. :headbang:
Why not just add some "Here you can buy your armor" :sniper: links. Then I can leave this game. I enjoy it because it doesn't have any "buy armour" or such. It is a.. errmm... was a rather free game for your own creative ideas.

*sigh* Think about the poor wretched invaders :( Now they cannot try to lure us defenders to one and then suddenly leap to another region and take that instead. Now.. the risk is to big for them to get caught in an update and their UN nations get worthless..

Just realised that multying maybe get worser with this.. Thats an interesting thought.

Thats my 2 crowns

yep, more people will get tempted to multi, yeah..
this makes your un worthless after getting hit by update,....

My God, I patch a bug in the game allowing people to exploit the game mechanics that allows them to get multiple updates at a time and I'm accused of trying to stifle invasions. That has nothing to do with it.

Each nation is supposed (and allowed) to only be updated once per cycle. This is in all ways, endorsements happens to fall within this category. Without doing this the problems are far worse. This has nothing to do with invasions and everything to do with patching a bug in the game that shouldn't have been there in the first place and opened the door to many other possible problems (that fortunately never became serious, but could have).

sal, i'm sure you never intended it that way, but seriously, this kills another part of the gameplay, you get hit by update on accident, un becomes useless, and since you can only have one, you're simply out of the game...

I can see what you're saying, but opening this back up creates enormous potential for abuse (and I've seen some of it). Anyway, having your endorsement count towards more than one delegate isn't exactly fair anyway.

Splitsecond invasion, 5 minutes before update are out of the question now. If you lurk in another region, you most surely will get hit by an update. And than you have to stay in the target region for at least a day, hoping that you, and your endorsees not get spot. It solves a whole lot of paranoia every day on update time, which now seems to have a little randomized :cool:
That leaves only inactive regios now, if people still like to invade. :p

I can see what you're saying, but opening this back up creates enormous potential for abuse (and I've seen some of it). Anyway, having your endorsement count towards more than one delegate isn't exactly fair anyway.
We could keep this without any problems if we lost the random update thing...

I for one welcome our new bug fixing programming overlords.

BTW, did the loophole with non-un nations being able to apply endorsements to UN and non-UN nations get fixed yet?

BTW, did the loophole with non-un nations being able to apply endorsements to UN and non-UN nations get fixed yet?

These never counted anyway.

I think that he is talking about the loophole that CG uses to invade, where a nation joins the UN and endorses a Non un nation via sneeky use of the Endorse Link, then when the nation in question joins the UN it has a pile of Endorsements that it shouldnt have.

the same trick the National Stalinists used , well National Stalinist, as it was one dude, wheras this is a Dude and a Dudette controlling a lot of folks UN nations over the course of a few days.

These never counted anyway.

True, until the endorsers are in the UN and the endorsee is also in the UN. The problem arises becuase of the following situation:

1.) A non-UN nation gains a large number of endorsements from nations in or not in the UN through manipulation of the endorsement link.
2.) The endorser(s) then join the UN.
3.) For each endorser that joins the UN the non-UN endorsee gains a "stealth" endorsement (can't be seen by anyone).
4.) The endorsee then joins the UN at any time.
5.) At the time of joining the UN all the endorsements are shown and applied at update.

It does not allow the delegate/founder to be able to stop a region-crashing because the "stealth" endorsee does not get shown until just before the update. The random region times help this situation but it is still a loophole and dirty play to use it.

errr....that bug.

My God, I patch a bug in the game allowing people to exploit the game mechanics that allows them to get multiple updates at a time and I'm accused of trying to stifle invasions. That has nothing to do with it.

Each nation is supposed (and allowed) to only be updated once per cycle. This is in all ways, endorsements happens to fall within this category. Without doing this the problems are far worse. This has nothing to do with invasions and everything to do with patching a bug in the game that shouldn't have been there in the first place and opened the door to many other possible problems (that fortunately never became serious, but could have).

Not blaming you at all, but when the mods/admin justify and allow exploits time after time, players will begin to expect exploiting to be a right. As an invader I know any way we find in the system is likely to be outlawed as soon as it is discovered- not because it is illegal, simply that most actions invaders take that aren't on paper and approved are going to be deemed unfair.

I'm not suprised that the defenders are upset they can't continue to use this expolit, part of the problem of allowing so many things to go by in the past. Again, not blaming you, just saying.

Juxt, what you listed will be fixed.

There are three types of actions that can be taken in this game:
1) Those actions directly permitted by the rules.
2) Those actions that are unforseen consequences of the rules (invasions themselves were an example of this, but have since moved to the first catagory).
3) Those actions that exploit a flaw in the code.

Those in the first category are (of course) allowed. Those in the second are reviewed (and often allowed), those in the third are always fixed. We aren't like Microsoft in that we'll reclassify a bug as a feature.

Not blaming you at all, but when the mods/admin justify and allow exploits time after time, players will begin to expect exploiting to be a right. As an invader I know any way we find in the system is likely to be outlawed as soon as it is discovered- not because it is illegal, simply that most actions invaders take that aren't on paper and approved are going to be deemed unfair.

I'm not suprised that the defenders are upset they can't continue to use this expolit, part of the problem of allowing so many things to go by in the past. Again, not blaming you, just saying.

Uhm... This affects both sides. More than once have I followed around invaders which were trying to invade one region after another during a single update. Fail at one... quickly move to the next. No kidding.

What this in fact does now is create a new game element: one moves around trying to get the other side to become 'blocked' from having their endorsements count. The solution is simple, ofcourse: have multiple nations ready with UN applications approved. Move them into a safe region at the start of update and then rotate through UN nations during the update as needed (one wouldn't have more than one UN nation at any moment, so it wouldn't be UN Multying according to the current definition).

Thing is... it creates a lot of extra work for players on both sides, places an extra burden on the system during update time, and if players jump through the extra hoop involved we're play-technically right back where we started: being capable of endorsing multiple times within one update. If the objective is to prevent people from having more than one endorsement count during an update, something more would need to be done (like: one wouldn't be allowed to join the UN during the update with a nation that hasn't been updated yet).

In summary: it doesn't actually prevent UN players having more than one UN vote counted, it just places a substantial extra burden on the invader/defense players.

Ballotonia

Juxt, what you listed will be fixed.

There are three types of actions that can be taken in this game:
1) Those actions directly permitted by the rules.
2) Those actions that are unforseen consequences of the rules (invasions themselves were an example of this, but have since moved to the first catagory).
3) Those actions that exploit a flaw in the code.

Those in the first category are (of course) allowed. Those in the second are reviewed (and often allowed), those in the third are always fixed. We aren't like Microsoft in that we'll reclassify a bug as a feature.

You seem to be indicating that what juxt was describing was a flaw in the code instead of just the way the system works. Thing is, I pointed this very thing out to you back in fall 2003 and it wasn't fixed. [violet] allowed that 'flaw' to be used in gameplay. If it's deemed a flaw, wouldn't [violet] disallowing it have been more appropriate?

Ballotonia

Ball,

Of course this is the call of the NS staff and they've already said it would be fixed but by allowing this I can see one contradicition and two problems.

The contradiction is that if it is ok not to see how many endorsements a nation has then why show them at all?

The problems are:
1.) How can a founder/delegate protect against a region crashing when the nation that will become delegate isn't even in the UN? They can't just boot everyone.
2.) Stealth endorsements do have unwanted effects on a nation and can be used by players to secretly mess up a nation without the endorsee ever knowing why.

Ball,

Of course this is the call of the NS staff and they've already said it would be fixed but by allowing this I can see one contradicition and two problems.

The contradiction is that if it is ok not to see how many endorsements a nation has then why show them at all?

The problems are:
1.) How can a founder/delegate protect against a region crashing when the nation that will become delegate isn't even in the UN? They can't just boot everyone.
2.) Stealth endorsements do have unwanted effects on a nation and can be used by players to secretly mess up a nation without the endorsee ever knowing why.

Well, I was just pointing out what seems to me as a difference of perspective between [violet] and Sal, that's all.

1) Since the update time is random, the attacker will have to join the UN at some point and wait. That's when it will be clear. Having a bunch of UN nations join (or non-UN nations already present join the UN) is a tip-off that something is about to happen. The only place one can limit those two items is in a feeder region. At that point the sheer size of the operation should be a giveaway to a properly running spy network.

2) What stealth effects are you talking about? Care to give an example?


Ballotonia

Uhm... This affects both sides. More than once have I followed around invaders which were trying to invade one region after another during a single update. Fail at one... quickly move to the next. No kidding.

What this in fact does now is create a new game element: one moves around trying to get the other side to become 'blocked' from having their endorsements count. The solution is simple, ofcourse: have multiple nations ready with UN applications approved. Move them into a safe region at the start of update and then rotate through UN nations during the update as needed (one wouldn't have more than one UN nation at any moment, so it wouldn't be UN Multying according to the current definition).

Thing is... it creates a lot of extra work for players on both sides, places an extra burden on the system during update time, and if players jump through the extra hoop involved we're play-technically right back where we started: being capable of endorsing multiple times within one update. If the objective is to prevent people from having more than one endorsement count during an update, something more would need to be done (like: one wouldn't be allowed to join the UN during the update with a nation that hasn't been updated yet).

In summary: it doesn't actually prevent UN players having more than one UN vote counted, it just places a substantial extra burden on the invader/defense players.

Ballotonia


Certainly, never meant to imply it doesn't affect both sides. I was commenting on Salsa's suprise at the way defender's/non-invaders are reacting. We're (invaders) used to being told that an expolit isn't allowed. I think that it is new for the other side to see the door close on them once they've found a whole, thus I'm not surprised how disapointed some people are with Salsa fixing a bug. The bugs have frequently benefited the defenders, thus they are suprised to see an exploit be taken from them.

You seem to be indicating that what juxt was describing was a flaw in the code instead of just the way the system works. Thing is, I pointed this very thing out to you back in fall 2003 and it wasn't fixed. [violet] allowed that 'flaw' to be used in gameplay. If it's deemed a flaw, wouldn't [violet] disallowing it have been more appropriate?

Ballotonia


This is part of what I am refering to. It is a flaw. If you think they coded this on puppose you must be insinuating that Violet takes a massive amount of drugs. While that may be, Violet did not do this on purpose. It was a mistake that some people were smart to figure it out.

Violet seems to allow exploits or flaws. When Francos was delfowere- I mean de-throned due to a flaw (when Corinthe almost took over the region), it was allowed because Violet disagreed with Neut that Flaws were fair-play.

So, you're proving my point, it is a flaw, and generally this is ruled okay when done by the non-invaders. Thus, some non-defenders are naturally going to be upset. It's new to them, this feeling of disapointment.

Well, I was just pointing out what seems to me as a difference of perspective between [violet] and Sal, that's all.

1) Since the update time is random, the attacker will have to join the UN at some point and wait.

Your justification based on random updates requires that a delegate/founder is playing the game during the 2-4 hour update times. For most people this game is not a 24 hour endeavor.


2) What stealth effects are you talking about? Care to give an example?
Ballotonia
I would rather not. If no one else has figured it out I don't want to be responsible for bringing into the public domain. If one of the NationStates staff would like to know what I am talking about I will gladly supply the information via telegram or e-mail. Heck, I'll put it up here if they say it's ok.

Juxt, send it on to me.

Regarding the flaws. I'm afraid that people aren't quite understanding what I meant. I'll use FS' delegacy as an example.

Due to a flaw, FS lost his delegacy. [violet] ruled that this was in game and thus could be exploited.
<==>
Due to a flaw, people could have their endorsements count multiple times over. No punishments have been earned by this.



[violet] fixed the code so the situation with FS won't happen again.
<==>
I'm fixing the code so that multiple endorsements don't happen again.

Is my position on this more clear now?

okay, so now we got random update times, and UN nation gets worthless after getting hit by one update.
so if you get hit accidently in a region, you're out of the game, tough luck..
that sucks.

what ballo said, can we do that? have several UN applications and use them during update?
nation gets hit by update, resign, sign up other and use that one?

According to Neut (well over a year ago) you have to wait one full update (i.e. 24 hrs) before you may reenter the UN with another nation.

According to Neut (well over a year ago) you have to wait one full update (i.e. 24 hrs) before you may reenter the UN with another nation.
I believe that was to avoid the risk of the cheatscan counting you as a UN multi, not a hard rule.

Juxt, send it on to me.


I tm'd your nation. Thanks.

I have a problem.

I move to a region and endorse someone. It shows up on their list of endorsements. But because I have already updated once today (in my previous region), my endorsement doesn't count. Now the endorsement list of the nation I've endorsed is incorrect, so someone could appear to have more endorsements than someone else, but still fail to get the delegacy.

I have a problem.

I move to a region and endorse someone. It shows up on their list of endorsements. But because I have already updated once today (in my previous region), my endorsement doesn't count. Now the endorsement list of the nation I've endorsed is incorrect, so someone could appear to have more endorsements than someone else, but still fail to get the delegacy.
Bump.

Summary: problems with shown number of endorsements/ true total of endorsements.

Bump. This has already been discussed in the thread, and Sal knows about it all, and he's considering it, so... be patient. ;)

This has already been discussed in the thread, and Sal knows about it all, and he's considering it, so... be patient. ;)
Ok, just as long as its getting done.

The issue really is the lesser of evils. I cannot allow nations to update multiple times. And, if I create a special exception for the UN, not only does that complicate the code (a very bad thing), but if a nation endorses 15 different delegates, his nation counts 15 (well, 16 really), in the UN.

Having the disagreement with the delegate count (and then having it clear) is an issue that I'm contemplating and trying to figure out. We actually are playing around with a couple of big code ideas that would fix this, we just aren't sure about them yet.

I am open to further input.

The issue really is the lesser of evils. I cannot allow nations to update multiple times. And, if I create a special exception for the UN, not only does that complicate the code (a very bad thing), but if a nation endorses 15 different delegates, his nation counts 15 (well, 16 really), in the UN.

Having the disagreement with the delegate count (and then having it clear) is an issue that I'm contemplating and trying to figure out. We actually are playing around with a couple of big code ideas that would fix this, we just aren't sure about them yet.

I am open to further input.
He could endorse 15 different delegates, but that wouldn't help, cos he'd have to be in the region for that endorsement to count at the update, and with random updates he can't be sure of that. Or, alternatively, with the random updates gone, you could be sure that losing/ wasting their endorsement wouldn't happen accidentally (or could be carefully avoided).

Big code ideas, would that be something like updating nations alphabetically rather than by region for the national changes, and then doing the UN stuff by region seperately either before, during or after?

Is there not just a way to ensure that endorsements don't get added to the list (or get added in the unverified way) when nations move after their update but before the target region's update? I don't know which is more vital to fix, the problem that they can't move and endorse and be sure they're accepted, or just the problem that it shows up wrong.

An error message? "The region you are moving to has not updated, but the one you're moving from has. Consquently, your endorsements won't be valid til this time tommorow? Maybe just a simple way of seeing when a region has updated and when it hasn't? (I'm thinking a little box with colour coding or something, that flips through a 7 colour series as it corresponds to the days of the week)

Spoffin, you appear to not be understanding the issue.

Your endorsement only counts if you are in the region during an update. So, you jump around into different regions and catch the update multiple times and have more power in the UN. Nations will only be updated once. I am still trying to find solutions to the other issues at hand.

Spoffin, you appear to not be understanding the issue.

Your endorsement only counts if you are in the region during an update. So, you jump around into different regions and catch the update multiple times and have more power in the UN. Nations will only be updated once. I am still trying to find solutions to the other issues at hand.

In concept such a thing would work without the check on a nation having gone through a prior update, but I believe that with random update times for regions it's not something that really works for large numbers of regions anyway. Even without that multiple-update check.

Example: say you have a list of 200 regions where you could endorse the delegate to support your favorite proposal. You go into the first and endorse the delegate. The region updates (on average, halfway through the update sequence... so your list of usable regions is cut down to 100) and you move on again. The next region updates on average at 3/4 of the cycle, etc... Even with a list of 200 available regions and an instant check on which are still available, you'd be lucky to get more than 7 votes. Not a lot considering the effort involved.

Please note that anyone willing to do the above could that even with the multiple-update check in place, by switching UN membership during the update instead of moving one UN nation around.

What you seem to be trying to do is use the check on UN Multi's to enforce each player having only one UN vote. Problem is that the update takes a long time and runs per region / per nation, not per player.

Ways I can see to use the UN Multi check to enforce one UN vote per player are to update the whole system at one time (basically, take a snapshot of which nations are where and then update them accordingly regardless of further movements) which also ruins random update times, or to disallow certain actions during update time (disallowing joining the UN, or moving regions).

Ofcourse, how this is resolved will likely have major influence on invader/defender gameplay.

Ballotonia

just a querry are the nations you mention who dropped off at update ones who ceased to be?

The issue really is the lesser of evils. I cannot allow nations to update multiple times.

Well, what IS the greater evil? Allowing someone to get a handful of UN votes through a lot of effort (which otherwise would require only a little more effort), or seriously impeding invader / defense gameplay?


I'm not sure how you've implemented this currently... I'm guessing something like (basically, how I would've done it ;) ) :
- at start of a region's update, the list of nations in the region is pulled from the DB.
- all nations already updated (a master list is maintained) are removed from the list of nations in the region.
- all nations in that list are updated one by one, with that same list serving as check for valid endorsements. So: all endorsements by nations not in the list are dropped.

What would happen if instead of checking endorsements using the limited list, you'd use the list of nations originally pulled? You'd be counting endorsements by those previously updated nations without updating those nations a second time.

It should IMHO be also possible to make two counts of endorsements: one to decide delegacy and another to decide how many UN votes the delegate gets...


Ofcourse, your implementation could be wildly different. It's tough making useful suggestions when not familiair with the code. :(

Ballotonia

What you seem to be trying to do is use the check on UN Multi's to enforce each player having only one UN vote. Problem is that the update takes a long time and runs per region / per nation, not per player.


Please do not try to assume motivations for me. I have clearly stated them earlier in this thread.

Regarding your second post. Yes, it is possible, I've said that before. I am just not convinced that it is desirable.

well, i'd like to be able to defend more than one region per update, that was part of the excitment, and the planning and all..
if that's what you mean.

But CG, that is Cheating, Sal is trying to do what is right here, let him,
what you describe is just wrong, it would be like France changing seats during a vote in teh UN and voting five or six times. I prefer this option, just imagine He could impose a limitation on moves or say if you are in X region at update you have to wait ten hours to move out of the region.

loop, be a good boy and read ballo's post would ya? :rolleyes:

Problem with Loop's suggestion on limiting moves: The Rejected Realms.

Ballotonia

this is what i mean.. :headbang:
i wake up, get on msn, and one of my friends asks me to move to a region to help them out, i log in, and see the RR already updated, making my un worthless, and i can't play even though the update cycle isn't over yet by far :headbang:

My idea isnt a Suggestion just a example of What Sal could Do,
CG, you are just gonna have to deal with it, Sal is a Game Admin, and he kinda outranks all of the ADN, If He wanted to make is to your nations page was displayed in Lavender and Teal, he could, he holds the big key and whatnot now.

what you suggest is actually kinda appropriate to a Real Life Situation,
on the News last night they talked about a College kid who voted twice in the Primaries in his state, he is now facing federal charges of somesort,
IRL having multiple votes is a no no, and Sal made is so in teh game too.

loop, get it in your head, i don't give a damn about the stupid un resolutions or anything, i just want to play the game and defend regions, okay? :rolleyes:

Spoffin, you appear to not be understanding the issue.

Your endorsement only counts if you are in the region during an update. So, you jump around into different regions and catch the update multiple times and have more power in the UN. Nations will only be updated once. I am still trying to find solutions to the other issues at hand.
More power in the UN... for UN resolution votes you mean?

loop, get it in your head, i don't give a damn about the stupid un resolutions or anything, i just want to play the game and defend regions, okay? :rolleyes:

If I may be so bold, I think though doest protest too much. Back in the days of yore before there were defenders, before there were moderators, before there were regional controls, there were invaders. I know because I was one.
When we went on one particularly nasty invasion I think we may have angered Max and regional controls were put into place shortly thereafter (maybe it wasn't us that forced the issue but it was pretty coincidental). We thought it was going to be the end of the world. Give up the game, it's ridiculous, there are better ways to handle this, we're doomed.
In the end it turned out that they were an excellent tool for us and not so much for the natives. Then more rules were put into place yadadadadada....on and on.
My point is that in the grand scheme It's not that big of a deal, it may seem so now but you'll find new ways to do your thing. In the end you may even find it helps you defend. Arguing and complaining about it only makes you look bad. The game mechanics and rules that are decided upon are rarely if ever revoked. Overcome and adapt.

i wake up, get on msn, and one of my friends asks me to move to a region to help them out,
The reason I agree with Sal is that it's not a level playing field. If US players want to play Invader, they have to stay up very late. Those of us with 8 to 5 jobs don't have the luxury of skipping out to play NS, but Europeans can pop on during the day to play.

Yeah, yeah, it's just whinging, but my $.02 anyway.

The best way to avoid it, is to have another nation with a UN aproval stand-by. If your main nation has already been updated, you have it resign from the UN, and accept the other aproval. That way they'll never know what hit them :p There is a potential risk of being scanned as a multi, but that's the risk you take, when you really really want to defend at all cost.

juxta, i was around back then as well, before regional controls and all, and actually, in that time, i was an invader.
and yes, i had to adapt to all the changes as well.
and i just think that random updates and this one update per nation isn't helping, you get hit by update on accident, you're out the game.

juxta, i was around back then as well, before regional controls and all, and actually, in that time, i was an invader.
and yes, i had to adapt to all the changes as well.
and i just think that random updates and this one update per nation isn't helping, you get hit by update on accident, you're out the game.

Excellent! Then this form of slow torture should not be foreign to you. You adapted before, you can adapt again. As we all had/have/will have to.

You adapted before, you can adapt again.

In Evolutionary terms: "Organisms adapt to their environments... OR they die"
You shouldn't forget that some species get extinct when their environment changes too much. This is just the same, you're killing an entire aspect of the game, the invading/defending is going down the drain.

Also in evolutionary terms "only the strongest survive". If some antis feel that they can't work under these conditions so be it. I am sure some invaders will feel this way as well.