EA Forums - Banner

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 players who have it without permission?
I would be very pleased if this situation changed and that the commander in chief and authorized officers could change that state to access the connection information of the naughty player.
Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.

Replies

  • EE_Elephterion
    1129 posts Envision Developer
    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.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • gamerdruid
    2646 posts Moderator
    Not the IP address - there is a setting to hide if you're online or not.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • nefrontheone
    258 posts Member
    edited June 5
    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
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • BambiByte
    91 posts Member
    edited June 5
    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.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • gamerdruid
    2646 posts Moderator
    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).
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • 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.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • EE_Elephterion
    1129 posts Envision Developer
    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.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • nefrontheone
    258 posts Member
    edited June 6
    :-(:-(
    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.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • If the CIC can not change it
    THEN make it so the CIC can check when the player Logged on Last
    You can land up with a player Hidden and in fact you dont know if he is active or inactive
    So perhaps some form of checking Hidden plays last Date of log on could be made for CIC and 2IC only
    To access that information
  • BambiByte
    91 posts Member
    edited June 6
    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.
    Post edited by BambiByte on
  • gamerdruid
    2646 posts Moderator
    If it is only the cic/sic that can tell if the player is online then (by the word hidden being different colour if it is viewed by them for example) then yes, privacy is compromised. But there again, Envision and EA use a lot of tools that do that in the metrics they collect.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    91 posts Member
    edited June 7
    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.
    Post edited by BambiByte on
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!