Change status of players
Hi! I have the idea that a commander in chief and officers can change the role of a player in their alliance: invite, test, member, veteran, etc. But why can not they change the "hidden" state to ...
Forum Discussion
"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.
