Change status of players

Connection Information as in IP address?
I don't think tha we can allow players to change or impede on the hidden status of other players.

Not the IP address - there is a setting to hide if you're online or not.

Any can change his status to "hidden"
But if you are in an alliance I think than CiC or officer must be the ability to change the "hidden" status to his troops.
Member information:
I'm talking about "Last connection: Yesterday 19:23" not talking about IP or something similar information. http://prntscr.com/ny1ptj

I agree with @nefrontheone
I mentioned this necessary change for other reason in these topics:
https://forums.ea.com/en/commandandconquer/discussion/244325/members-hidden-state
https://forums.ea.com/en/commandandconquer/discussion/244315/a-all-allied-alliance-button
Privileg of hidden settings should go to CiC/SiC

I'm not requesting to change anything than a player can do, only to add the possibility that the leadership of an alliance can change the hidden state of their members.

Alternatively, that the status of 'hidden' changes colour if the player hat way only those of a particular standing in the alliance can see they are online, not every player (including spies).

Yes, of course, you can change the color so that the player is warned that their leaders changed their status to see their activity and thus be informed.

"nefrontheone;c-2071639" wrote:
I'm not requesting to change anything than a player can do, only to add the possibility that the leadership of an alliance can change the hidden state of their members.

That sounds rather contradicting, alliance leaders are players as well. Regardless, Hidden state are a privacy feature, and it is not intended to be undermined like that, so that's not going to happen I'm afraid.

:-(:-(
In agreement, it will be necessary to apply the norm: All player of the alliance that puts their state "hidden" will be expelled of the same one.

"EE_Elephterion;c-2071678" wrote:

"nefrontheone;c-2071639" wrote:
I'm not requesting to change anything than a player can do, only to add the possibility that the leadership of an alliance can change the hidden state of their members.

That sounds rather contradicting, alliance leaders are players as well. Regardless, Hidden state are a privacy feature, and it is not intended to be undermined like that, so that's not going to happen I'm afraid.

Of course, CiC is a player as well - but hidden state should not be a privacy feature of a member. If a player wants to play alone without any partner, he /she can do it alone, out of the alliance.

Hidden state is not about privacy, that is a tactical tool. if you interpret it as a privacy issue, then it is contradicting in teamwork. What we should decide is that if we want to be a member of an alliance or not. --> If yes, then less strict privacy should be acknowledged.

/// With cookies, you can get special features of a webpage -- for the price of your privacy. --> So, in the game you can choose a higher level of privacy, out of a team. I think. If a player does not want to be a partner, I kick him - not because I am evil. I respect his privacy, and the interests of my team as well. ...just imagine a team where all the members are hidden. Is it a team or a bunch of single player? ///

Effective teamwork and a high level of privacy protection do not work at the same time. The two concepts exclude each other.