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

JackTheSnack

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

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

TheMightyMaze said:

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

rokkoutt said:

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

Crine60 said:

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

Zeraphan said:

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

BringPopcorn said:

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

JackTheSnack

Abspain101 said:

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