One answer I've seen is that if God made his existence certain to all people, he would limit the free action of people. Under this view, free will is a competition between good and bad desires. Believe in God makes the desire to do good significantly outweigh the desire to do bad. People have a disposition to do good out of respect for God. Naurally, becasue the desire to do good significantly outweighs the desire to do bad, the moral action of a person who is certain of God's existence has less moral worth than an agnostic because the beiever has a natural disposition to perform the right action (because of their respect for God). People who lack certainty in God's existence balance more towards doing the bad than the good action, so when they make the good action, their actions have more moral worth because they are combating more bad desires than the certain believer. The point is that God, by witholding his presence, allows for greater moral actions to take place.

So essentially, it's better to not believe in God and be good, then to beleive in God and be good?

Also, this issue would be much more complex than some deity revealing itself.

Not necessarily, it depends on the level of belief and the goodness of the action in question. Also, this answer does not say anywhere that it is better to not believe in God and be good than to believe in God and be good. A non-believer has a greater capabity to do a moral good, but morality is not the sole determinant of the value of a belief (eg. correspondance and truth are also important when assessing beliefs). That said, under this view, a non-believer would be more moral than a believer if they are doing the same action with the same results, as long as the motivations for the action are respectable.

So if what you say is true, why is it that you hear/see god, when many other people don't?

That's the question I am answering, so the question at issue is not more complex than some deity revealing itself.