Why do assigned raids spots mean nothing?

This has been a consistant thorn in the side for our ally! We're pretty casual but have enough talent for 1 nightmare raids bg and 1 normal raids and even tho spots are assigned in advance the backup player gets screwed quite often because some idiot decides to join raids and take the backup spot and jepordise the plan and basically steal rewards from others. The solution is simple, when a spot is assigned it prevents others from joining, 2 members in our ally will now not get the selector crystal bcus random morons wanted rewards without earning them (even tho they were kicked as soon as it was noticed) and kabam cant do nothing or so they say.

Comments

BringPopcorn

This has been a consistant thorn in the side for our ally! We're pretty casual but have enough talent for 1 nightmare raids bg and 1 normal raids and even tho spots are assigned in advance the backup player gets screwed quite often because some idiot decides to join raids and take the backup spot and jepordise the plan and basically steal rewards from others. The solution is simple, when a spot is assigned it prevents others from joining, 2 members in our ally will now not get the selector crystal bcus random morons wanted rewards without earning them (even tho they were kicked as soon as it was noticed) and kabam cant do nothing or so they say.

Don't recruit idiots

Muppet17

Well thats why ur not in our ally!

BringPopcorn

Well thats why ur not in our ally!

But all 30 people in my alliance are getting their raid tokens ☹️

Muppet17

And somehow no-one believes u, however I was just asking a question so if u got nothing construstive to say then say nothing.

NoahSansman

And somehow no-one believes u, however I was just asking a question so if u got nothing construstive to say then say nothing.

What he said was constructive. As leadership its on you to not recruit people who can't follow directions.

BringPopcorn

And somehow no-one believes u, however I was just asking a question so if u got nothing construstive to say then say nothing.

By no one you mean you?
Yeah having 30 NR players must be something so incredible that I need to lie about it....
My answer was constructive, recruit better. Make sure new people know what they are allowed to do.

Furrymoosen

And somehow no-one believes u, however I was just asking a question so if u got nothing construstive to say then say nothing.

What is there to not believe? His take was accurate, and he's in an alliance that isn't facing the problems that you are. How is that unbelievable?

As far as your question (which is really a meaningless question the way it's posed), that's a recent topic of conversation that Kabam is potentially looking into.
But think of it from the opposite end. What happens when assignments are locked and something happens and you need to shuffle stuff around, but you can't because the content already started and you're not able to make changes? But that wouldn't come up very often, right? Of course not, but neither does or should the issue you're bringing up. And if it does come up a lot, then we're back to the feedback you've already received - you're recruiting bad players that don't know how to follow directions.
A change to locking BG assignments, while good to some degree, is only helpful to alliances that don't run three BGs or have players that can't follow simple directions. The solution to this issue is far more easily solved on the part of the alliance - recruit better and hold players accountable. The solution that Kabam could provide runs the risk of creating issues for alliances that are actually serious about running alliance content, alliances where this isn't even remotely an issue, and that just doesn't seem worth it.

Herbal_Taxman

OP, I agree in the sense that I think officers and leaders should be empowered with as many tools possible to control their ally. Officers put in way too much time, they have earned the right to be more authoritarian if they choose to be.

But the bigger point still stands. No UX or functional update will really save you from idiots. Stupidity is undefeated. Gotta get better people or jump ship and find yourself a more well-organized ally.

BringPopcorn

And somehow no-one believes u, however I was just asking a question so if u got nothing construstive to say then say nothing.
What is there to not believe? His take was accurate, and he's in an alliance that isn't facing the problems that you are. How is that unbelievable?

As far as your question (which is really a meaningless question the way it's posed), that's a recent topic of conversation that Kabam is potentially looking into.
But think of it from the opposite end. What happens when assignments are locked and something happens and you need to shuffle stuff around, but you can't because the content already started and you're not able to make changes? But that wouldn't come up very often, right? Of course not, but neither does or should the issue you're bringing up. And if it does come up a lot, then we're back to the feedback you've already received - you're recruiting bad players that don't know how to follow directions.
A change to locking BG assignments, while good to some degree, is only helpful to alliances that don't run three BGs or have players that can't follow simple directions. The solution to this issue is far more easily solved on the part of the alliance - recruit better and hold players accountable. The solution that Kabam could provide runs the risk of creating issues for alliances that are actually serious about running alliance content, alliances where this isn't even remotely an issue, and that just doesn't seem worth it.

There are many reasons why locking can do more harm than benefit.
Week 3 we had 1 guy who had some personal problems. So we 9 man one BG and send our back up to their BG. If BGs were locked we wouldn't have been able to do this. Later on Sat night we sent a message to the person unable to play and told him to join our BG even if it was clear to collect his chests and tokens. Communication was key, you don't need baby proofing the game. Just need to communicate. Unfortunately there is no such thing as idiot proofing.

BringPopcorn

Oh boy look at what I found ..

Tsk tsk tsk...
1st come 1st served....I guess the player who sniped the spot wasn't an idiot after all...
RECRUIT BETTER

JackTheSnack

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/399666/qol-change-can-we-please-make-battlegroups-lock-alliance-members-to-certain-maps

BringPopcorn

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/399666/qol-change-can-we-please-make-battlegroups-lock-alliance-members-to-certain-maps

Buddy some people explained why it wouldn't be a good idea to just lock it. It can be counter productive too

Muppet17

Oh boy look at what I found ..

Tsk tsk tsk...
1st come 1st served....I guess the player who sniped the spot wasn't an idiot after all...
RECRUIT BETTER

First come first served simply means when we do our raids call outs whoever responds first gets a spot, this is done a week in advance. All bg's and paths/roles are pre planned. Its not a free for all. Assigned spots can also be changed during the week by any officer so if someone drops out and needs replaced its easily arranged. Finding good consistant players in this game is like finding helpful constructive responses in the forums (not so easy) maybe u could use all the free time you have to come up with a solution instead of searching through my post history.

Beerus2Strong

Happened to us. We asked folks to raise their hand if they wished to join raids and only 10 showed interest. We then made it clear to everyone else to not join the raid group and our backup guy got shafted by some idiot who thought it'd be nice to hop in and go down the already cleared path instead of helping the path that was struggling.

Now our backup sits on 3 tokens and no selector. I don't get how others expect you to know how others are going to go off-script and do their own stupid stuff or how you could possibly prevent such incidents without being afforded the tools to doing so. But then again we have some miserable people on here willing to argue just for the sake of it.

Beerus2Strong

And somehow no-one believes u, however I was just asking a question so if u got nothing construstive to say then say nothing.
What is there to not believe? His take was accurate, and he's in an alliance that isn't facing the problems that you are. How is that unbelievable?

As far as your question (which is really a meaningless question the way it's posed), that's a recent topic of conversation that Kabam is potentially looking into.
But think of it from the opposite end. What happens when assignments are locked and something happens and you need to shuffle stuff around, but you can't because the content already started and you're not able to make changes? But that wouldn't come up very often, right? Of course not, but neither does or should the issue you're bringing up. And if it does come up a lot, then we're back to the feedback you've already received - you're recruiting bad players that don't know how to follow directions.
A change to locking BG assignments, while good to some degree, is only helpful to alliances that don't run three BGs or have players that can't follow simple directions. The solution to this issue is far more easily solved on the part of the alliance - recruit better and hold players accountable. The solution that Kabam could provide runs the risk of creating issues for alliances that are actually serious about running alliance content, alliances where this isn't even remotely an issue, and that just doesn't seem worth it.
There are many reasons why locking can do more harm than benefit.
Week 3 we had 1 guy who had some personal problems. So we 9 man one BG and send our back up to their BG. If BGs were locked we wouldn't have been able to do this. Later on Sat night we sent a message to the person unable to play and told him to join our BG even if it was clear to collect his chests and tokens. Communication was key, you don't need baby proofing the game. Just need to communicate. Unfortunately there is no such thing as idiot proofing.

"Unfortunately there is no such thing as idiot proofing."

I agree