I find this to be straightforward but it doesn't appear so to others. The level of commitment with Map5 is different from 6 & 7 and now 8 like I said before. In Map 5, if one of your members have an emergency or is traveling and won't be around a short time, you can still explore with 9 members. Map 8 alliances are top tier and can't afford losing a member for 24+ hrs. I understand when Map 8 wasn't around 6 and 7 were top tier. Now we have 8, Map 6 tickets are no more why not make drop down the commitment level further by reducing the paths? The leeway being asked here is not even Map 2 or 3 type but will still require a good measure of commitment just not the same as Map 7 and 8. Those strongly against it, I'm wondering what's in for you. If you don't mind and are able to do the 10-paths section you sure can do it when it's 8 or 9 and make room for others to join in.
There's nothing in it for me. If Kabam put section 3 to 9 paths, no skin off my back. The problem I have is only wanting a change in maps because someones BG can't commit to 10 paths. That's not a QOL change. That's trying to make your square peg fit into a round hole.
Your asking Kabam to make changes to fit your personal needs when the map itself was designed to get everyone in your alliance to work together.
Everyone in Map 5 alliances work together as well, everyone. But as you know, we all don’t have the same circumstances and life can get in the way of game activities for some more than others. That’s why we have hardcore players and those that aren’t, or can’t even if they want to. The leeway ask makes room for the latter to enjoy Map 6; the slight rewards difference, it’s challenging fights and a new experience for some, etc. What’s the point in introducing Map 8 giving its players a new experience (also relief them of Map 7 boredom or routine) but Map 5 players can’t jump unto the Map 6 train because of one of the reasons they couldn’t do it at first (fear of not exploring cos of the 10 paths section).
I just counted the number of fights in Map 5 and Map 6. I got 112 vs 119. I didn’t realize it was that close. I also counted 43 empty nodes vs 47 empty nodes, so total movement required is quite similar as well.
It seems to me that this entire argument hinges on the OP and his supporters wanting to be able to explore the Map, not just finish it. Which is a pretty weak argument when you consider the difference in rewards, IMO.
Comments
It seems to me that this entire argument hinges on the OP and his supporters wanting to be able to explore the Map, not just finish it. Which is a pretty weak argument when you consider the difference in rewards, IMO.