QOL change: Can We Please Make Battlegroups Lock Alliance Members to Certain Maps

1. Can we please make it to where if someone is in a certain battle group they can’t infiltrate or join another battle group. Or at least a setting that allows this. We set our Battle Groups up so that our players know which raid map to go in but some don’t have discord and don’t check our alliance chat.

To those that say just kick them, you obviously don’t know how hard it is to BUILD a solid alliance

2. Please make battle groups mode specific. Would love to be able to have a different 3 battle groups for the different alliance game modes (war and AQ/Raids). We have different members that opt in/want to be in raids vs. others who’s strong suit is war

Comments

TheMightyMaze

It would be helpful to see this implemented considering you can typically assign battle groups. It sort of makes it hard when someone makes a mistake and goes in the wrong battle group or doesn’t know which to pick.

JackTheSnack

It would be helpful to see this implemented considering you can typically assign battle groups. It sort of makes it hard when someone makes a mistake and goes in the wrong battle group or doesn’t know which to pick.

Yeah, I mean we assign battle groups for a reason. Would love to at least have the option. People join alliances knowing they have rules. Would be a lot easier to implement if we took choosing any map they want out of the question

rokkoutt

I second this. i feel like a bg lock would help a lot especially with events like this one. Someone from bg2 should NOT be allowed to join bg1 during raids whenever they want to. It messes up things a ton and causes other members who participate regularly to miss out on rewards.

JackTheSnack

I second this. i feel like a bg lock would help a lot especially with events like this one. Someone from bg2 should NOT be allowed to join bg1 during raids whenever they want to. It messes up things a ton and causes other members who participate regularly to miss out on rewards.

Could even be a selectable setting. For those that want to keep it simple and allow free roam, let them, and for the ones who don’t, let them lock their Battle Groups to maps and be able to have different groups in different modes. Just more levels of control for those who want it…or even those who don’t want to fool with it

Crine60

For the other side I will say that my alliance does a mix of maps/raids and the officers don't always get around to changing the assignments from raid week to the normal week before things start up again but without things being locked we can still join the groups we are actually supposed to be in even though it isn't "correct" according to the not updated assignments. If something like a battle group lock was implemented it would negatively impact all alliances whose officers don't always stay on top of reconfiguring things so an option to turn on or off the lock setting would be better than just always having it locked.

JackTheSnack

For the other side I will say that my alliance does a mix of maps/raids and the officers don't always get around to changing the assignments from raid week to the normal week before things start up again but without things being locked we can still join the groups we are actually supposed to be in even though it isn't "correct" according to the not updated assignments. If something like a battle group lock was implemented it would negatively impact all alliances whose officers don't always stay on top of reconfiguring things so an option to turn on or off the lock setting would be better than just always having it locked.

It would be selectable. If you wanted it to lock it would lock and if your alliance is more laid back then you could keep it how you have it. Said that in some comments above this. Would be at least nice to have the option to choose

Zeraphan

I think more options is always a good thing. Implementing this in a way that it is a toggle so alliances can choose the best fit for their dynamics (or change if they choose to as well) makes it the best of both worlds.

JackTheSnack

I think more options is always a good thing. Implementing this in a way that it is a toggle so alliances can choose the best fit for their dynamics (or change if they choose to as well) makes it the best of both worlds.

Yeah in our case we had someone who knew better but I’d like just for the option to not be there tempting

Savage123456789

I thought there’s a warning that pop ups if you try to join a different battle group? And if players are consistently disregarding the warning, you’ll end up having other problems down the line with those types of players.

Abspain101

I agree with this I mean yeah it's nice being able to assign ppl to bgs but when they can just ignore the warning message and join anyway it's annoying I just had to update our bgs since we had enough ppl to do 1 bg of nmr luckily no one joined that wasn't supposed to but it could have gone badly pls we spammed our line chats to make sure no one did lol

BringPopcorn

How is people supposed to snipe raid spots if they do that.

JackTheSnack

How is people supposed to snipe raid spots if they do that.

JackTheSnack

I agree with this I mean yeah it's nice being able to assign ppl to bgs but when they can just ignore the warning message and join anyway it's annoying I just had to update our bgs since we had enough ppl to do 1 bg of nmr luckily no one joined that wasn't supposed to but it could have gone badly pls we spammed our line chats to make sure no one did lol

Yeah I mean honestly what’s the point of even making groups if they’re just a suggestion. Or at least just having the option to make them not a suggestion. The alliances that don’t mind having them all open can keep doing their thing, but it would be a really nice feature.

To hit on the point you did, a lot of people just spam the buttons when entering - I find that for people going through a lot of menus. That’s why people were so mad when that updated crystal page happened and there were 300 unit a piece crystals behind no confirmation message or anything

Aecyn

I've brought this up before and that thread got revived I guess which lead me here but it's just weird that assignments mean nothing. Last time I posted, one of our members lost his spot from a random person that joined our alliance not too long before. This time, we had someone who was with us for a while but was never interested in participating in raids that took a spot, we told them they shouldn't have and then did it again the next week, taking my spot. So now two of us are missing out on the selector. We usually only run one raid group because we only have enough people interested to clear one while the other few that bother to do AQ normally are fine just doing that.

It would be awesome to have assignments be forced. Or at the very least make it so that players assigned to groups have to put in a request to join another one that leadership has to approve. That way there's a way to solve issues on the fly if someone suddenly isn't available after assignments can no longer be changed for that week.

Lost____one

It would be good if leadership could move players to the correct and alliance desired group.

Also for alliance war, and include going into character roster to place the desired and proper defence.

Not everyone can place thier 3 star enchantress .... for giggles.

Finalfuryk

Yeah. I'm going to end up missing one token because three people not assigned to my raid group couldn't clear the first boss in one of the weeks even with the bonus revives. Its not the end of the world for me as I've got mostly everyone awakened besides Nightcrawler and IW, but its the principle of the thing. You would think after months of Raids being available people would actually know how to play them by now, but I guess its too complicated for valiants. Its not often I agree with Jack but this is a good suggestion. Give alliances the ability to lock AQ groups on raid weeks.