Loss of Substitute privileges

@Aegelweard442 It's not something I expect them to plan to change because it was a deliberate move to reduce privileges unless specifically authorised. This came about because a number of players were complaining that all their buildings were sold by the substitute player and they were effectively removed from the game.

So it's something that was intentional, rather than a side effect of some other change. As such it's unlikely to be changed back as the change was as a result of complaints.

Thanks @gamedruid for your response, and I can understand the need for a duty of care towards players, it is just a shame that the many are affected by the actions of the foolish/selfish few.

But if that is the case this time then I really do not understand as the annoying thing is that all these sub-requests were all given with specific sell privileges from the account owner, but have now been removed following an update.

As you will know, quite some time ago that (sell) element was understandably added to the substitution options, (following abuse by some players, and complaints by those affected), which had the same affect as this time round, (everyone losing that privilege unless a new request was submitted specifically authorizing that action). That was a nuisance but quite understandable to protect players interest.

But the difference this time round is that we are losing a privilege that had already been specifically approved by the account owner, just so it can be specifically approved again(?!) - and to me that makes no sense at all as the account owner had already given his authorization, and that has now been removed by EA, not the account owner. In older and less active worlds that permission is not now so easy to get back if a player has left the game.

This means that the management of the account you are able to provide on behalf of the player that has entrusted you to look after his account, has been reduced by the restrictions imposed by EA, after it has been specifically approved by the account owner in order to allow you to manage the account. I am not sure how that is in anyone's best interest.

Part of the problem was the sell privilege was given by default, so it was given - yes, but may not have been intended to be given by a careless or less experienced player. That is the rational behind it being removed. Substitutions are only intended as short term holiday relief not long term takeover so, in theory, the removal of the privilege is only for a short time until the original player returns from 'holiday' or 'sick call'. In reality, on older worlds, the substitute system is used for long and very long term playing,

I understand the problem, I understand how we've got here too. It is some selfish players abusing the system and destroying the accounts of others. But that is the real world and the world we live in!

Initially it was default yes, but that changed some time ago when you had to specifically check that option to allow buying and selling units. But it has now been reset again for reasons I do not agree with or understand. There is no obvious gain this time, nothing has changed, just the inconvenience of that option being removed from current substitutions, which now needs to be reapplied by the account holder, which is not always possible on older Worlds.

You are of course correct that substitutions were intended for short term cover (which happens on newer worlds), and also that more often than not its use on older Worlds is more long term. But given that it only takes a few minutes from a selfish player with the wrong mind set to sell off another player’s base, I am not sure how this latest action solves the problem going forward, or why the same action needed to be applied on older worlds (where quite clearly that should be less of an issue, players tend not to sell off bases and ruin accounts which they themselves have helped build up for weeks if not months).

So the exact same problem can still happen in the future on any new substitutions, nothing has changed and it is new substitutions where the problem surely lies, so what exactly did this 'action' actually fix?


You would think that EA’s ‘duty of care’ would end with the quite clear warnings surrounding substitutions:
“Warning: Choose a trustworthy substitute! The substitute will be able to chat, mail and post in forums using your name, buy/sell units and research new technologies. The substitute will not be able to attack other players, initiate player relocation or change any alliance rights.”
“Share only with confidence”

That along with the (already in place) requirement to specifically check the statement “Allow substitute to sell buildings and units”, which as said has been a requirement for a long time now.

So is there not also a duty of responsibility to players not to change rules and structures of older Worlds/servers?
By all means adjust new Worlds to ‘improve’ them (if that is what the changes do), but it is frustrating to be a player where the rules are constantly changing, which has been the case during my time on this game.

(i.e. letting players farm human bases for 2 years to grow faster than others, then decide to change the rules ‘to make it fairer’, by stopping others players from gaining that same advantage that those before them had – A classic case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and only ensuring that those who had the advantage would be the only ones to ever gain that advantage!)

There is no dispute in my mind that the changes are being made for what EA believe to be the right reason, it is just the execution and fairness to the majority of players (especially on existing / older Worlds) that I would dispute in these situations, and especially in this case where the actions do not further protect less experienced players. Nothing has changed in that regard.

I for one have not started any new Worlds for some time now, and a big reason for that is simply that I have no confidence that the rules in place when I start the game, will be the same as the rules when I complete the World. That is not correct or fair in my opinion, so I simply play other games that do not have this issue. And from discussions with other players I know I am not alone in this. And EA should probably account for this in their decision making.

Apart from the differences in cost of purchases and the forgotten morale and attacks, they try to keep all worlds the same as far as they can. That is at least partly why they have changed some things on older worlds.