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
It is clear and I respect the effort of EA keeping the privacy so important, but:
There are many levels of privacy. If privacy is a barrier of proper operation, user has to disclaim a necessary part of that - or the person will not use the service. (In my previous post, I mentioned the cookie usage and the example where all the players are hidden) When you join a team, you agreed and acknowledged that your team mates will see if you are online. That is all. Normally it is logical and understandable for all. If privacy is more important than using services, then it is time to be offline behind closed doors and windows.
If EA takes privacy so seriously, why privacy is violated by having hidden state not set as default? LOL Imagine a game-world with greenhorn players. They will never meet.
In Hungary, (maybe in many other places) glass of the windscreens on cars has to be tinted lower than 30%. It hurts your privacy, since others can see that it is you personally who sits inside - but the tinted glass hurts other rights of the community. Drive safely is more important than your privacy.
What kind of game is the one where within an alliance even the leader of the group can not see members? This way, he lost his purpose - and the game as well.
If I kick the hidden players, cooperation will be possible within the team again - and I will invite others. Does privacy make sense in this case? In teamwork, presence is fundamental. This is not a single player FPS game.
Can you play baseball if you do not have the right of seeing your team mates? Nonsense. :) When someone plays, he will be visible. It is as clear as dropped objects will fall towards the center of Earth.
There are many levels of privacy. If privacy is a barrier of proper operation, user has to disclaim a necessary part of that - or the person will not use the service. (In my previous post, I mentioned the cookie usage and the example where all the players are hidden) When you join a team, you agreed and acknowledged that your team mates will see if you are online. That is all. Normally it is logical and understandable for all. If privacy is more important than using services, then it is time to be offline behind closed doors and windows.
If EA takes privacy so seriously, why privacy is violated by having hidden state not set as default? LOL Imagine a game-world with greenhorn players. They will never meet.
In Hungary, (maybe in many other places) glass of the windscreens on cars has to be tinted lower than 30%. It hurts your privacy, since others can see that it is you personally who sits inside - but the tinted glass hurts other rights of the community. Drive safely is more important than your privacy.
What kind of game is the one where within an alliance even the leader of the group can not see members? This way, he lost his purpose - and the game as well.
If I kick the hidden players, cooperation will be possible within the team again - and I will invite others. Does privacy make sense in this case? In teamwork, presence is fundamental. This is not a single player FPS game.
Can you play baseball if you do not have the right of seeing your team mates? Nonsense. :) When someone plays, he will be visible. It is as clear as dropped objects will fall towards the center of Earth.
