Leader assigns BG members

It would be extremely beneficial and reduce a lot of frustration if the alliance leader could assign battle groups to members. When a member joins the War or Quest they go to the battle group automatically, that the leader assigned them.

Comments

Demonzfyre

Or just get mature player who follow directions

crogs

Sometimes easier said than done. I'd like to be able. To lock BG's out so nobody can join them until one is full. AQ is somewhat optional in our retirement alliance. We use the 2nd bg as overflow and a one path shot to dorm just for points. But if people. Join it prematurely, then the people in bg1 have a harder time with more work. Kinda defeats the casual/retired aspect of it.

Dan99

Yes! This would be a great feature to be added! Please Kabam, make it happen!

Maat1985

Whilst top tier allies will say use line, communicate better, etc etc....

From lower allies and allies going through recruitment phase this would be very handy....

Atm i am recruitng and replacing members and i spend so much time organising this that and the other it would be so easy for me to be able to assign in game on a per war basis..
Cus anyone who knows what it is like recruiting sometimes i may be a couple members short for a war ir may need to readjust bgs to balance strength.

It would be really really handy to be able to assign bgs in game

Earth_Rick_c137

Demonzfyre wrote: »

Or just get mature player who follow directions

This

There are some pretty simple ways to weed out players who will not fit into your alliance's culture. This is one of them.

Maat1985

Earth_Rick_c137 wrote: »

Demonzfyre wrote: »

Or just get mature player who follow directions

This

There are some pretty simple ways to weed out players who will not fit into your alliance's culture. This is one of them.

Its not always about need....
Its about ease of operation...
Something like this could make it easier for alot of peeps....
It will not make it harder for those that dont need it....
It can only make it easier for those who want it....

I dont need it for my ally. But i can tell you it would be handy. The more that can be done easier in game the better it will be.

We wanna be a casual ally and if we feel the need to run a 2bg war this would be the most simple way....

Why do people always dismiss and talk against a suggestion of a game improvemnt just because you dont like it? If it wiuld benifit someone then it would be a good feature even if that someone is not you

Zeronaut81

I think it could be a good feature, if optional & a transparent part of an alliance.
I can think of a few options that would be cool, such as a minimum champ/pi total requirement or something, too.
I like my alliance, but we have 2 ppl that consistently place crappy 3* champs in important nodes that dont fit the node's strengths or even add synergy bonuses to their defenders. Worst part is that they have better champs to place, & they rarely go on attack. So they save their stronger champs for I don't know what, exactly.
It would be cool if leadership could just put blanket requirements in, and participation would hinge on those requirements.

Jaffacaked

Zeronaut81 wrote: »

I think it could be a good feature, if optional & a transparent part of an alliance.
I can think of a few options that would be cool, such as a minimum champ/pi total requirement or something, too.
I like my alliance, but we have 2 ppl that consistently place crappy 3* champs in important nodes that dont fit the node's strengths or even add synergy bonuses to their defenders. Worst part is that they have better champs to place, & they rarely go on attack. So they save their stronger champs for I don't know what, exactly.
It would be cool if leadership could just put blanket requirements in, and participation would hinge on those requirements.

Kick those 2 then, can't be putting up with their bs. Also synergies for defence do not work, plenty of threads about this topic.