Loss of Substitute privileges
I run a few substitute accounts for less active and (and in some cases non active players), managing their accounts for them, and also using them to assist with fortress runs. I have noticed that the...
Forum Discussion
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.
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.
