Quality of Life Suggestion: Less paths for Map 6?

Bocksarox

Considering Map 6 is a free map (not requiring tickets), it seems like it is the new best map for casual players with decent accounts, but having 10 paths in the last section means that there is no room for error in case someone can't clear their path for whatever reason.

I think Map 6 would be much more doable and less stressful if the paths in the 3rd section only containing one fight were removed.

Demonzfyre

It's the 3rd hardest difficulty. How can you ever prepare for higher maps if your entire alliance isn't helping in at least one section?

Bocksarox

Demonzfyre said:

It's the 3rd hardest difficulty. How can you ever prepare for higher maps if your entire alliance isn't helping in at least one section?

Your question confuses me because it seems irrelevant. All I'm asking is to be able to run the last section with 8 people. That would not hinder people from being prepared for higher maps. It would only make it easier for CASUAL alliances that are not pushing for top rewards to be able to run Map 6 with less stress. Since Map 6 is no longer the end game Map that it used to be with the addition of Map 8, it would make sense to make it more doable for casual players.

TimeGenesis

if u want 8 people on the last section then go a bit lower.
or
do 1 day of map 6 on day1 so u all can get used to it then add modifiers then add more days so u can 100% it. Your 'Decent accounts' should also match it with decent skills.

World Eater

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Bocksarox

-Removing two fights/paths would reduce the amount of stress significantly for casual alliances/players simply because it allows more flexibility if one or two people can't find time to log on at the end. Especially alliances that have members from many different time zones from across the world.
-Top end alliances don't run Map 6 anymore and would be unaffected.
-Map 6 does not require tickets for entry, making it a good time for Map 6 to become the new Map 5.
-This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the map or an inability to get the boss down. (I could do Map 8, but I don't always have that kind of time.) This is a suggestion to make exploration easier when someone from the alliance isn't able to log on. It's only Map 6!
-Some people have lives outside of the game, which is probably something people with thousands of forum posts can't understand.
-Kabam has been trying to find ways to make the game less demanding for casual players.

Zeraphan

I don't understand why people are being so harsh on @Bocksarox and this idea. If an idea like this happened it would not effect the higher level maps or Alliances that run them. This would be a nice QOL for the more casual side of the game. I in no way see a negative to this.

Bocksarox

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

QuikPik

Instead of making 8 paths in section 3, they could remove one of the linked nodes to the boss. That way, if someone is busy, you'll just lose out on the map6 crystal.

Bocksarox

QuikPik said:

Instead of making 8 paths in section 3, they could remove one of the linked nodes to the boss. That way, if someone is busy, you'll just lose out on the map6 crystal.

I appreciate the input, but this idea is specifically to make exploration easier.

Bocksarox

Zeraphan said:

I don't understand why people are being so harsh on @Bocksarox and this idea. If an idea like this happened it would not effect the higher level maps or Alliances that run them. This would be a nice QOL for the more casual side of the game. I in no way see a negative to this.

Thank you!

World Eater

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Demonzfyre

Bocksarox said:

Demonzfyre said:

It's the 3rd hardest difficulty. How can you ever prepare for higher maps if your entire alliance isn't helping in at least one section?

Your question confuses me because it seems irrelevant. All I'm asking is to be able to run the last section with 8 people. That would not hinder people from being prepared for higher maps. It would only make it easier for CASUAL alliances that are not pushing for top rewards to be able to run Map 6 with less stress. Since Map 6 is no longer the end game Map that it used to be with the addition of Map 8, it would make sense to make it more doable for casual players.

Map 6 prepares you to do map 7. Map 7 prepares you to do map 8. Maps 7 and 8 both have sections where all 10 people in the BG have to take a lane.

Map 6 is already for casual alliances. It can be done with R5 4*'s except maybe the boss. None of of those fights in section are difficult to begin with even if you don't have R3 6*'s. You can drop to map 5 and still not lose that much. Map 6 is a perfectly fine difficulty for the rewards it gives. If you don't want a challenge, do map 5.

Demonzfyre

If you're a casual alliance then why do you care about exploration? Sounds like you want the rewards but don't want to put the work in. If the remove paths, rewards go down.

Bocksarox

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Bocksarox

Demonzfyre said:

If you're a casual alliance then why do you care about exploration? Sounds like you want the rewards but don't want to put the work in. If the remove paths, rewards go down.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. That's quite the stretch. I have no issue pulling my weight and expect nothing for free. I'm talking about two fights in total being removed, which are the only fights on their respective paths.

Plus, if that gives more alliances the ability to move up to Map 6 instead of Map 5 (which is my ultimate goal) then the rewards go up.

Bocksarox

The people arguing the most probably don't even run Map 5 or 6, so I'm not sure why this would be any concern of theirs. It wouldn't affect them at all. This is a suggestion for casual players, not players that spend all day on the forums.

World Eater

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Perhaps you missed where I said removing paths would make it a glorified Map5 & where I said having 10 ppl for section 3 is part of the challenge for Map6.

From a personal standpoint, I’d like it if your suggestion was implemented cuz it makes Map6 easier, but I can’t see Kabam making this change.

Demonzfyre

Bocksarox said:

Demonzfyre said:

If you're a casual alliance then why do you care about exploration? Sounds like you want the rewards but don't want to put the work in. If the remove paths, rewards go down.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. That's quite the stretch. I have no issue pulling my weight and expect nothing for free. I'm talking about two fights in total being removed, which are the only fights on their respective paths.

Plus, if that gives more alliances the ability to move up to Map 6 instead of Map 5 (which is my ultimate goal) then the rewards go up.

Those aren't the only 2 on that path as the middle 2 fights are shared that the same 2 people. Those paths also share the corner nodes and the global fight.

All I see is you want a map change so don't have to do as many paths for the sake of you just not wanting to do them.

Demonzfyre

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Map 6 isn't demanding. Map 7 isn't even demanding. Anyone with a low-mid to mid tier roster shouldn't have any issues.

Bocksarox

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Perhaps you missed where I said removing paths would make it a glorified Map5 & where I said having 10 ppl for section 3 is part of the challenge for Map6.

From a personal standpoint, I’d like it if your suggestion was implemented cuz it makes Map6 easier, but I can’t see Kabam making this change.

That’s great that you think it would make a good change! But why don’t you think Kabam would implement it? They’ve done a lot recently to make once tedious tasks less tedious.

I get that the 10 paths adds a layer of difficulty, but that feels outdated with the addition of Map 8.

I didn’t miss your point about how this makes Map 6 a more difficult Map 5. That’s exactly what I want! I’m tired of Map 5. I’ve been doing Map 5 for years. Unfortunately, Map 5 is the hardest map you can still play at a casual level, as Map 6 requires all hands on deck to fully explore. That’s not always a problem, but if one person can’t log on for a personal reason, they let 29 other players down in the process.

QuikPik

They already made map6 a lot more time friendly by removing all the nodes that linked other paths. That used to be a nightmare to manage considering you have people with all different play schedules.

Why not have 1 BG of map6 for those that can commit to it.

Bocksarox

Demonzfyre said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Map 6 isn't demanding. Map 7 isn't even demanding. Anyone with a low-mid to mid tier roster shouldn't have any issues.

It is not a roster issue. It is not a skill issue. It is a time commitment issue.

Linked nodes can be moved. Paths can be rerouted. As I said earlier, this is a raw idea.

Map 6 is no longer the bleeding edge of top content, and there is no longer any reason to treat it as such. Map 8 exists and Map 6 does not have an entry cost.

Bocksarox

QuikPik said:

They already made map6 a lot more time friendly by removing all the nodes that linked other paths. That used to be a nightmare to manage considering you have people with all different play schedules.

Why not have 1 BG of map6 for those that can commit to it.

We’ve tried that, and the result is that we end up leaving one path because someone can’t log on because of work, sleep, or because they have an emergency.

Next, I’m sure someone will say, “Get rid of that person that’s holding you back.” Well, it’s not always the same person, and it’s rare that this happens to us. However, I’m sure there are alliances that have this problem more frequently. It’s just frustrating for everyone involved when it does happen.

Also, no one wants to run a harder, more time consuming Map 6 while everyone else runs Map 5. They would just go to a full Map 6 alliance.

Demonzfyre

Bocksarox said:

Demonzfyre said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Map 6 isn't demanding. Map 7 isn't even demanding. Anyone with a low-mid to mid tier roster shouldn't have any issues.

It is not a roster issue. It is not a skill issue. It is a time commitment issue.

Linked nodes can be moved. Paths can be rerouted. As I said earlier, this is a raw idea.

Map 6 is no longer the bleeding edge of top content, and there is no longer any reason to treat it as such. Map 8 exists and Map 6 does not have an entry cost.

Just because it's not the top map anymore doesn't mean the need to make it easier for your alliance to commit to. Map 6 is now meant to be a transition map to help prepare alliances for 7 and 8. If your alliance all the sudden wants to move to map 7, you're in for a world of hurt since sections 2 and 3 require all 10 and running map 6 won't have prepared you for that change.

We gotta stop calling things a QOL change when it's just something you want to fit your alliance.

J0eySn0w

Demonzfyre said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Map 6 isn't demanding. Map 7 isn't even demanding. Anyone with a low-mid to mid tier roster shouldn't have any issues.

I think you're missing the point unless I don't understand what you mean by demanding. Ideally, when AQ is being tackled the goal is to explore and you need all 10 players to be able to do so in Map 6. That's one point @Bocksarox is pointing out. If that's not demanding what is? It's not about the fight difficulties but getting everyone involved before the quest end thus QoL. With new Map 8, Map 6 is kinda longer what it used to be and that makes sense considering how rosters have grown, now we have 6r4s, champion pools going up with many new champs to tackle different interactions, tickets been removed from Map 6 etc... it's only fair to make the quest less demanding for casual palyers (many of whom have multiple r3s they wanna put them to the challenge and not having to chased around to join and be checking their phone every now and then), that way they don't need all 10 players to explore.

Demonzfyre

J0eySn0w said:

Demonzfyre said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Map 6 isn't demanding. Map 7 isn't even demanding. Anyone with a low-mid to mid tier roster shouldn't have any issues.

I think you're missing the point unless I don't understand what you mean by demanding. Ideally, when AQ is being tackled the goal is to explore and you need all 10 players to be able to do so in Map 6. That's one point @Bocksarox is pointing. If that's not demanding what is? It's not about the fight difficulties but getting everyone involved before the quest end thus QoL. With new Map 8, Map 6 is kinda longer what it used to be and that makes sense considering how rosters have grown, now we have 6r4s, champion pools going up with many new champs to tackle different interactions, tickets been removed from Map 6 etc... it's only fair to make the quest less demanding for casual palyers (many of whom have multiple r3s they wanna put them to the challenge and not having to chased around to join and be checking their phone every now and then), that way they don't need all 10 players to explore.

OP wants a "QOL" change because they can't get the full commitment from their alliance. That's what this boils down to. So because they can't get full commitment, they want paths reduced. That's why lower maps exist is for alliances that can't get a full 10 person BG to commit to AQ.

Bocksarox

Demonzfyre said:

J0eySn0w said:

Demonzfyre said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Map 6 isn't demanding. Map 7 isn't even demanding. Anyone with a low-mid to mid tier roster shouldn't have any issues.

I think you're missing the point unless I don't understand what you mean by demanding. Ideally, when AQ is being tackled the goal is to explore and you need all 10 players to be able to do so in Map 6. That's one point @Bocksarox is pointing. If that's not demanding what is? It's not about the fight difficulties but getting everyone involved before the quest end thus QoL. With new Map 8, Map 6 is kinda longer what it used to be and that makes sense considering how rosters have grown, now we have 6r4s, champion pools going up with many new champs to tackle different interactions, tickets been removed from Map 6 etc... it's only fair to make the quest less demanding for casual palyers (many of whom have multiple r3s they wanna put them to the challenge and not having to chased around to join and be checking their phone every now and then), that way they don't need all 10 players to explore.

OP wants a "QOL" change because they can't get the full commitment from their alliance. That's what this boils down to. So because they can't get full commitment, they want paths reduced. That's why lower maps exist is for alliances that can't get a full 10 person BG to commit to AQ.

No, it is exactly as @J0eySn0w described. I have 17 R3 champs and Map 5 does not offer the same challenge that it once did. Map 6 is the next step, but the number of paths makes that difficult, and the paths with one fight seem arbitrary. The game is moving forward, but Map 6 is stuck in the past.

Map 6 is a bottleneck, and it is holding back casual players that have accounts too big for Map 5 because of a required time commitment. It seems like you're the only one missing the point.

Zeraphan

Bocksarox said:

Demonzfyre said:

J0eySn0w said:

Demonzfyre said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

Bocksarox said:

World Eater said:

You can still defeat the map 6 boss with linked nodes on him. I highly doubt any paths will be removed; deal with it.

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205014/awakening-gem-trade-in-system#latest

I made this suggestion a year and a half before it was implemented. I doubt my suggestion made any difference, and it wasn't carried out the way I had described it, but as it turns out the awakening gem trade in was a huge hit.

So, maybe you can't see past the nose on your own face, but it doesn't mean that these types of QoL suggestions are bad ideas. These ideas are raw and Kabam would need to work them into their vision of how they see things moving forward.

There’s a big difference between an inventory or item suggestion and suggesting that they remove paths from AQ map6 becuz you think “there’s no room for error”.

Thing is, you don’t need 10 people to defeat the map6 mini boss, so “the no room for error” argument goes out the window. It’s made so that you need 10 people to 100%. That’s the challenge and why it’s “harder” than map5. Reducing the amount of paths in section 3 would just make it a glorified map5.

Have you actually read anything I said? This is not the point I am trying to make. This is 100% about exploration. Not about a boss. Not about a mini boss. Not about the fights on the path being too hard. I want to remove two paths that only have one fight each (two fights total, see image on original post) so that alliances can explore the final section without needing all 10 people.

With the addition of Map 8, there is no longer any need for Map 6 to be as demanding as it is currently, especially since Map 6 doesn't require an admission fee.

Map 6 isn't demanding. Map 7 isn't even demanding. Anyone with a low-mid to mid tier roster shouldn't have any issues.

I think you're missing the point unless I don't understand what you mean by demanding. Ideally, when AQ is being tackled the goal is to explore and you need all 10 players to be able to do so in Map 6. That's one point @Bocksarox is pointing. If that's not demanding what is? It's not about the fight difficulties but getting everyone involved before the quest end thus QoL. With new Map 8, Map 6 is kinda longer what it used to be and that makes sense considering how rosters have grown, now we have 6r4s, champion pools going up with many new champs to tackle different interactions, tickets been removed from Map 6 etc... it's only fair to make the quest less demanding for casual palyers (many of whom have multiple r3s they wanna put them to the challenge and not having to chased around to join and be checking their phone every now and then), that way they don't need all 10 players to explore.

OP wants a "QOL" change because they can't get the full commitment from their alliance. That's what this boils down to. So because they can't get full commitment, they want paths reduced. That's why lower maps exist is for alliances that can't get a full 10 person BG to commit to AQ.

No, it is exactly as @J0eySn0w described. I have 17 R3 champs and Map 5 does not offer the same challenge that it once did. Map 6 is the next step, but the number of paths makes that difficult, and the paths with one fight seem arbitrary. The game is moving forward, but Map 6 is stuck in the past.

Map 6 is a bottleneck, and it is holding back casual players that have accounts too big for Map 5 because of a required time commitment. It seems like you're the only one missing the point.

There is no point in arguing with them. Some of the people fighting you on this only agree with ideas that are their own and everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong.

This community, sadly, also has a lot of "I had to do it so everyone should" mentality. There were a lot of complaints when the earlier Acts were made easier because new players didn't have to deal with the same stuff older players did.