Officers Assigning AW/AQ Battlegroups

Little_JerryLittle_Jerry Member Posts: 2
in General Discussion
How would the community feel if officers of alliances were able to select which members of their alliance were able to join certain BGs of war/quest? My alliance has been plagued recently of new members joining the alliance and sneaking in war BGs before our normal group can all join, and it ends up costing us the war. Is this issue common among other alliances?
I think that adding the ability for officers to essentially check a box if a member can join a BG would be an easy fix to this. Obviously communication within an alliance aids in this issue too, but a lot of new alliance members either don’t read chat/line or just don’t care.

Comments

  • PantherusNZPantherusNZ Member Posts: 2,200 ★★★★★
    Yeah I agree - actually assigning people to BGs would be great. There are room for issues but I've seen so many wars/AQ screwed over by people joining the wrong BG.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,677 Guardian
    I asked for something like this years ago, and I wasn't the only one. Assigning or restricting battlegroups is one of those things that seems pretty obviously a good idea but probably isn't a priority for the developers.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Member Posts: 22,062 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    I asked for something like this years ago, and I wasn't the only one. Assigning or restricting battlegroups is one of those things that seems pretty obviously a good idea but probably isn't a priority for the developers.

    I brought it up in our feedback group as well. I'm not sure why it can't happen. As an officer in my alliance, it would be amazing.
  • BogiaBogia Member Posts: 125 ★
    If you have members who aren't listening/reading chat, then assigning them to a BG would prevent them from joining the wrong one, but it wouldn't stop them from going down wrong paths or following others instead of taking down defenders. I feel like you need to find better people. Have you tired the Alliance Recruitment section of the forums?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,677 Guardian
    Bogia said:

    If you have members who aren't listening/reading chat, then assigning them to a BG would prevent them from joining the wrong one, but it wouldn't stop them from going down wrong paths or following others instead of taking down defenders. I feel like you need to find better people. Have you tired the Alliance Recruitment section of the forums?

    I'm probably one of the most attentive players out there, and even I've entered the wrong battle group a couple times in three years of playing. The last time it happened was soon after we did a BG shuffle for logistical purposes, and I instinctively entered my old group instead of the correct one. Accidents happen. Miscommunications also happen: our alliance has players that speak different languages, and sometimes things get lost in translation, literally.

    The problem is a mistake like this cascades: someone enters the wrong BG, then someone else has to get moved. If you have players that play in different timezones, you can't just randomly move someone else or hope the right person shifts: you have to make sure their timezone works for those paths.

    Also, I'm fine with the people in my alliance: I would rather reduce the chances for unnecessary errors in the game than replace players I like playing with every time they make a mistake.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Member Posts: 22,062 ★★★★★
    Bogia said:

    If you have members who aren't listening/reading chat, then assigning them to a BG would prevent them from joining the wrong one, but it wouldn't stop them from going down wrong paths or following others instead of taking down defenders. I feel like you need to find better people. Have you tired the Alliance Recruitment section of the forums?

    Only time I'd kick someone for joining the wrong group is if it's a constant thing. Having new members that are going to a new BG different from their old one, you're bound to have a few goofs. Preventing the initial troubles os what OP is referencing.
  • klobberintymeklobberintyme Member Posts: 1,590 ★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    I asked for something like this years ago, and I wasn't the only one. Assigning or restricting battlegroups is one of those things that seems pretty obviously a good idea but probably isn't a priority for the developers.

    If you're given control over another players champs above and beyond where they are placed on the board, based on nothing else but the whim of a "leader" who assigned you a status change, thats a slippery slope.
    Do you want me choosing your defenders without your consent to be placed in a bg where you may not want to participate, simply because I can?

    Naw for me.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,677 Guardian
    klobberintyme said:

    DNA3000 said:

    I asked for something like this years ago, and I wasn't the only one. Assigning or restricting battlegroups is one of those things that seems pretty obviously a good idea but probably isn't a priority for the developers.

    If you're given control over another players champs above and beyond where they are placed on the board, based on nothing else but the whim of a "leader" who assigned you a status change, thats a slippery slope.
    Do you want me choosing your defenders without your consent to be placed in a bg where you may not want to participate, simply because I can?

    Naw for me.
    I'm not sure where the slippery slope is here. Leaders can straight up kick you if you don't follow instructions. They can do so at any time, for any reason, or no reason, without appeal. Since they already have the power to decide which battlegroup you go to, or else be gone, I don't see how giving them the ability to assign battlegroup options in the actual game gives them any more power than they already have.
Sign In or Register to comment.