If you really have time commitments then go do map5....besides map6 ever hardly does require some time to complete anyways. R3s makes it sooo much easier...Fights even with epic mods don't last 3 minutes.
How is the number of paths make it more difficult? All you need to do is read the nodes and make sure you can counter them right / play it right..
Edit: Map6 can still be done casually and can casually still be 100%. Boss can be taken down noded too.
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.
I know Demon's reputation in the forums. I know he just likes to argue, and there are 4,700 posts that support that.
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.
A couple things I don’t understand:
Why is exploration so important to you? If you have 17 6r3’s that 1 extra Map 6 crystal really isn’t moving the needle at all. The better rewards are in the milestone and rank rewards. You just need completion for those.
Why do you want to increase the jump in difficulty from Map 6 to Map 7? It’s already a pretty big jump coordinating paths when you first start. Or are you advocating for a Map 7 change as well?
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.
A couple things I don’t understand:
Why is exploration so important to you? If you have 17 6r3’s that 1 extra Map 6 crystal really isn’t moving the needle at all. The better rewards are in the milestone and rank rewards. You just need completion for those.
Why do you want to increase the jump in difficulty from Map 6 to Map 7? It’s already a pretty big jump coordinating paths when you first start. Or are you advocating for a Map 7 change as well?
One extra, or more likely three extra, Map 6 crystals per day. That adds up.
I'm advocating that the increase in time commitment be moved to Map 7, if that's how you want to look at it.
Not really sure what your issue is for timing on map6. Its easy enough as it is. If you cant 100% it then your better off doin d lower maps. If you want challenge on lower maps then use champs of lower rarity.
If its just a few people that really want a challenge then go join a team that are still doin M6 and can 100% it.
Not really sure what your issue is for timing on map6. Its easy enough as it is. If you cant 100% it then your better off doin d lower maps. If you want challenge on lower maps then use champs of lower rarity.
If its just a few people that really want a challenge then go join a team that are still doin M6 and can 100% it.
I heard the "get over it" argument and it isn't interesting. I understand how things are. I'm trying to explain why it should change.
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.
Believe me, I get it. The fact that higher tiers of AQ simultaneously make the content individually harder and also place increasingly higher burdens on time and consistency on a wider group of players is something I myself struggle with. I can understand why it happens, and I can understand why some players appreciate the challenge of it, but it is something that I personally would not have designed into the game.
I struggle with this one, because on the one hand I believe in the principle of something for everyone, not everything for someone. We have eight AQ maps, asking for one map to be changed just to accommodate a small group of players when reasonable alternatives are available is something I would never do without an extremely good reason. I do have a reason: I feel that this escalation along with things like the way alliance war works acts as overly strong homogenization pressure on alliances, and that is not just bad for the players it is bad for the game: alliances are a form of engagement tool, but the more you make alliance membership purely utilitarian, the less loyalty people feel and the less engagement you get from them. This is not the best design decision for a game like this.
But is this a good enough reason? I honestly don't know. And "I don't know" is no.
At the end of the day, I do the best I can with the tools available. I run Map 5/4/1 every week, because this allows me to accommodate the time constraints on my members. I could sleep walk through Map 6, but I do what's best for the alliance. And the alliance members know this, they are only here because they accept the alliance might not be getting the best rewards, but the slack it has is something everyone benefits from when they balance the game and the rest of their life. This is not easy. But it is possible. Part of enjoying a game like this is playing it on your terms.
I will say this: if the devs made Map 6 easier by reducing the battlegroup load (i.e. reducing path count) then I'd start doing it. But I wouldn't feel anything about it. It would just be a purely numbers decision. If my alliance ever reached a point where we could do Map 6 as it is now, I would switch to it and I would feel something about that. I would feel like I accomplished something. When I restructured my alliance to what it is now, I had to rebuild it. At one point I had 14 members. I was struggling to do two map 3s. I felt great when we started doing map 4 again. I was really happy when we started doing map 5 again. Consistently completing map 5 and map 4 felt like an accomplishment. Because we moved up to the content, the content didn't come down to us (and I realize the maps have changed over time, in some cases to make them simpler to run).
At the end of the day, in my opinion it isn't rewards that sustain most players, it is the sense of accomplishment. Rewards can contribute to that, and without rewards there is no way to progress, but if players don't feel like they are accomplishing something all the rewards in the game will feel hollow. Every time something gets easier, some of the possibility for accomplishment gets removed from the game. We may never get to Map 6, but someone out there will. An alliance out there is running Map 6 for the very first time this week, when they thought they couldn't last week. If we make Map 6 easier, we're helping some alliances who would otherwise never get there. But we would be taking that away from the players that do get there. You have to really believe it is worth it to do that. And at this moment in time, I'm not convinced it is.
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.
Believe me, I get it. The fact that higher tiers of AQ simultaneously make the content individually harder and also place increasingly higher burdens on time and consistency on a wider group of players is something I myself struggle with. I can understand why it happens, and I can understand why some players appreciate the challenge of it, but it is something that I personally would not have designed into the game.
I struggle with this one, because on the one hand I believe in the principle of something for everyone, not everything for someone. We have eight AQ maps, asking for one map to be changed just to accommodate a small group of players when reasonable alternatives are available is something I would never do without an extremely good reason. I do have a reason: I feel that this escalation along with things like the way alliance war works acts as overly strong homogenization pressure on alliances, and that is not just bad for the players it is bad for the game: alliances are a form of engagement tool, but the more you make alliance membership purely utilitarian, the less loyalty people feel and the less engagement you get from them. This is not the best design decision for a game like this.
But is this a good enough reason? I honestly don't know. And "I don't know" is no.
At the end of the day, I do the best I can with the tools available. I run Map 5/4/1 every week, because this allows me to accommodate the time constraints on my members. I could sleep walk through Map 6, but I do what's best for the alliance. And the alliance members know this, they are only here because they accept the alliance might not be getting the best rewards, but the slack it has is something everyone benefits from when they balance the game and the rest of their life. This is not easy. But it is possible. Part of enjoying a game like this is playing it on your terms.
I will say this: if the devs made Map 6 easier by reducing the battlegroup load (i.e. reducing path count) then I'd start doing it. But I wouldn't feel anything about it. It would just be a purely numbers decision. If my alliance ever reached a point where we could do Map 6 as it is now, I would switch to it and I would feel something about that. I would feel like I accomplished something. When I restructured my alliance to what it is now, I had to rebuild it. At one point I had 14 members. I was struggling to do two map 3s. I felt great when we started doing map 4 again. I was really happy when we started doing map 5 again. Consistently completing map 5 and map 4 felt like an accomplishment. Because we moved up to the content, the content didn't come down to us (and I realize the maps have changed over time, in some cases to make them simpler to run).
At the end of the day, in my opinion it isn't rewards that sustain most players, it is the sense of accomplishment. Rewards can contribute to that, and without rewards there is no way to progress, but if players don't feel like they are accomplishing something all the rewards in the game will feel hollow. Every time something gets easier, some of the possibility for accomplishment gets removed from the game. We may never get to Map 6, but someone out there will. An alliance out there is running Map 6 for the very first time this week, when they thought they couldn't last week. If we make Map 6 easier, we're helping some alliances who would otherwise never get there. But we would be taking that away from the players that do get there. You have to really believe it is worth it to do that. And at this moment in time, I'm not convinced it is.
A lot of well thought out ideas here. I'm glad it's more than the "Get over it" most people that want to argue can come up with.
To me, making this change would open the door to more people to feel that sense of accomplishment.
I could be wrong. I don't have the data, but I assume that there is a significant number of the player base that runs Map 5. I don't think making Map 6 less exclusive (maybe not the right word) would take away from anyone's sense of accomplishment that is already running Map 6. If that Map became too easy for them, a Map 7 already exists. Then, a Map 8.
The usual suspects are showing up to debate, though, and that's just putting more eye balls on this topic. I appreciate that.
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.
A couple things I don’t understand:
Why is exploration so important to you? If you have 17 6r3’s that 1 extra Map 6 crystal really isn’t moving the needle at all. The better rewards are in the milestone and rank rewards. You just need completion for those.
Why do you want to increase the jump in difficulty from Map 6 to Map 7? It’s already a pretty big jump coordinating paths when you first start. Or are you advocating for a Map 7 change as well?
One extra, or more likely three extra, Map 6 crystals per day. That adds up.
I'm advocating that the increase in time commitment be moved to Map 7, if that's how you want to look at it.
Hmm, interesting take. I figured I’d go open 15 Map 6 crystals to see what it “adds up” to. 6k T2A 13k T4B 21k of various T4CC And that’s assuming you miss exploration in every single BG on all 5 days.
Doesn’t seem like much to me when you weigh that against the 6k T5B and 5k T2A that you get by going from Rank 2,201-2,800 to Rank 1,701-2,200. And that doesn’t even include the extra Glory or extra Milestone rewards that you’d get as well.
I do think you should reconsider how important exploration is. Just my 2 cents.
Also, your second comment makes it seem like you think time commitment should only be increased once across all of Maps 5-8. That doesn’t make much sense to me. I really don’t see why increasing the gap between Map 6 and Map 7 would be a good thing for the game mode overall.
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.
It's not about just you though. That's why I said your ALLIANCE. You aren't 10 people. The "bottleneck" is YOU want to do map 6 but can't find reliable enough people to make sure section 3 can be done 100%. If there were 10 of you in one BG, you wouldn't have this "QOL" need. The problem is that you don't have 10 of you or 30 of you. You have people in your alliance who either can't finish because they aren't ready, don't have the time or whatever else reason. So because you have these people, you want 9 paths instead of 10 because it fits YOUR alliance needs. That's not a QOL change.
A QOL change was that they changed to starting with full energy instead of 3 or 4.
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.
Believe me, I get it. The fact that higher tiers of AQ simultaneously make the content individually harder and also place increasingly higher burdens on time and consistency on a wider group of players is something I myself struggle with. I can understand why it happens, and I can understand why some players appreciate the challenge of it, but it is something that I personally would not have designed into the game.
I struggle with this one, because on the one hand I believe in the principle of something for everyone, not everything for someone. We have eight AQ maps, asking for one map to be changed just to accommodate a small group of players when reasonable alternatives are available is something I would never do without an extremely good reason. I do have a reason: I feel that this escalation along with things like the way alliance war works acts as overly strong homogenization pressure on alliances, and that is not just bad for the players it is bad for the game: alliances are a form of engagement tool, but the more you make alliance membership purely utilitarian, the less loyalty people feel and the less engagement you get from them. This is not the best design decision for a game like this.
But is this a good enough reason? I honestly don't know. And "I don't know" is no.
At the end of the day, I do the best I can with the tools available. I run Map 5/4/1 every week, because this allows me to accommodate the time constraints on my members. I could sleep walk through Map 6, but I do what's best for the alliance. And the alliance members know this, they are only here because they accept the alliance might not be getting the best rewards, but the slack it has is something everyone benefits from when they balance the game and the rest of their life. This is not easy. But it is possible. Part of enjoying a game like this is playing it on your terms.
I will say this: if the devs made Map 6 easier by reducing the battlegroup load (i.e. reducing path count) then I'd start doing it. But I wouldn't feel anything about it. It would just be a purely numbers decision. If my alliance ever reached a point where we could do Map 6 as it is now, I would switch to it and I would feel something about that. I would feel like I accomplished something. When I restructured my alliance to what it is now, I had to rebuild it. At one point I had 14 members. I was struggling to do two map 3s. I felt great when we started doing map 4 again. I was really happy when we started doing map 5 again. Consistently completing map 5 and map 4 felt like an accomplishment. Because we moved up to the content, the content didn't come down to us (and I realize the maps have changed over time, in some cases to make them simpler to run).
At the end of the day, in my opinion it isn't rewards that sustain most players, it is the sense of accomplishment. Rewards can contribute to that, and without rewards there is no way to progress, but if players don't feel like they are accomplishing something all the rewards in the game will feel hollow. Every time something gets easier, some of the possibility for accomplishment gets removed from the game. We may never get to Map 6, but someone out there will. An alliance out there is running Map 6 for the very first time this week, when they thought they couldn't last week. If we make Map 6 easier, we're helping some alliances who would otherwise never get there. But we would be taking that away from the players that do get there. You have to really believe it is worth it to do that. And at this moment in time, I'm not convinced it is.
A lot of well thought out ideas here. I'm glad it's more than the "Get over it" most people that want to argue can come up with.
To me, making this change would open the door to more people to feel that sense of accomplishment.
I could be wrong. I don't have the data, but I assume that there is a significant number of the player base that runs Map 5. I don't think making Map 6 less exclusive (maybe not the right word) would take away from anyone's sense of accomplishment that is already running Map 6. If that Map became too easy for them, a Map 7 already exists. Then, a Map 8.
The usual suspects are showing up to debate, though, and that's just putting more eye balls on this topic. I appreciate that.
I forgot no one is allowed opinion other than what matches what you want in the thread.
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.
Believe me, I get it. The fact that higher tiers of AQ simultaneously make the content individually harder and also place increasingly higher burdens on time and consistency on a wider group of players is something I myself struggle with. I can understand why it happens, and I can understand why some players appreciate the challenge of it, but it is something that I personally would not have designed into the game.
I struggle with this one, because on the one hand I believe in the principle of something for everyone, not everything for someone. We have eight AQ maps, asking for one map to be changed just to accommodate a small group of players when reasonable alternatives are available is something I would never do without an extremely good reason. I do have a reason: I feel that this escalation along with things like the way alliance war works acts as overly strong homogenization pressure on alliances, and that is not just bad for the players it is bad for the game: alliances are a form of engagement tool, but the more you make alliance membership purely utilitarian, the less loyalty people feel and the less engagement you get from them. This is not the best design decision for a game like this.
But is this a good enough reason? I honestly don't know. And "I don't know" is no.
At the end of the day, I do the best I can with the tools available. I run Map 5/4/1 every week, because this allows me to accommodate the time constraints on my members. I could sleep walk through Map 6, but I do what's best for the alliance. And the alliance members know this, they are only here because they accept the alliance might not be getting the best rewards, but the slack it has is something everyone benefits from when they balance the game and the rest of their life. This is not easy. But it is possible. Part of enjoying a game like this is playing it on your terms.
I will say this: if the devs made Map 6 easier by reducing the battlegroup load (i.e. reducing path count) then I'd start doing it. But I wouldn't feel anything about it. It would just be a purely numbers decision. If my alliance ever reached a point where we could do Map 6 as it is now, I would switch to it and I would feel something about that. I would feel like I accomplished something. When I restructured my alliance to what it is now, I had to rebuild it. At one point I had 14 members. I was struggling to do two map 3s. I felt great when we started doing map 4 again. I was really happy when we started doing map 5 again. Consistently completing map 5 and map 4 felt like an accomplishment. Because we moved up to the content, the content didn't come down to us (and I realize the maps have changed over time, in some cases to make them simpler to run).
At the end of the day, in my opinion it isn't rewards that sustain most players, it is the sense of accomplishment. Rewards can contribute to that, and without rewards there is no way to progress, but if players don't feel like they are accomplishing something all the rewards in the game will feel hollow. Every time something gets easier, some of the possibility for accomplishment gets removed from the game. We may never get to Map 6, but someone out there will. An alliance out there is running Map 6 for the very first time this week, when they thought they couldn't last week. If we make Map 6 easier, we're helping some alliances who would otherwise never get there. But we would be taking that away from the players that do get there. You have to really believe it is worth it to do that. And at this moment in time, I'm not convinced it is.
A lot of well thought out ideas here. I'm glad it's more than the "Get over it" most people that want to argue can come up with.
To me, making this change would open the door to more people to feel that sense of accomplishment.
I could be wrong. I don't have the data, but I assume that there is a significant number of the player base that runs Map 5. I don't think making Map 6 less exclusive (maybe not the right word) would take away from anyone's sense of accomplishment that is already running Map 6. If that Map became too easy for them, a Map 7 already exists. Then, a Map 8.
The usual suspects are showing up to debate, though, and that's just putting more eye balls on this topic. I appreciate that.
I forgot no one is allowed opinion other than what matches what you want in the thread.
Are you Mr Fantastic? 'Cause your ability to stretch is unprecedented.
You are acting like map 6 is time consuming. I take it you haven’t played it since you have 6 energy at start and 45 min timers. Having 10 paths in section 3 is not an issue also since they came out with being able to undo a move in aq. If you are having issue with map 6. That’s on the player. As my alliance runs map 6 all 5 days. Every bg is in section 3 before midnight east. So you telling me you have players that don’t come on for 14 hours to clear their lines? If that case find new players. If it’s an item issue. Again find new players that don’t use items. Map 6 is easier then 5 is
You are acting like map 6 is time consuming. I take it you haven’t played it since you have 6 energy at start and 45 min timers. Having 10 paths in section 3 is not an issue also since they came out with being able to undo a move in aq. If you are having issue with map 6. That’s on the player. As my alliance runs map 6 all 5 days. Every bg is in section 3 before midnight east. So you telling me you have players that don’t come on for 14 hours to clear their lines? If that case find new players. If it’s an item issue. Again find new players that don’t use items. Map 6 is easier then 5 is
I already addressed most of this in a previous part of the thread. So, I’ll keep it simple.
I think 10 path sections should be reserved for the highest Maps. I think Map 6 can be reduced to 8 paths and it would help a lot of alliances move up to a higher Map. If that’s too easy for you and your alliance, Map 7 exists. However, I think most people already running Map 6 would enjoy the reduced stress.
We are casual, but Map 5 is too easy. Map 6 requires too many people to be available 5 out of every 8 days. Are we going to keep having this discussion when 7 star champs are available?
At some point, changes have to be made to adjust for the power creep. I’m suggesting that time is now.
You are acting like map 6 is time consuming. I take it you haven’t played it since you have 6 energy at start and 45 min timers. Having 10 paths in section 3 is not an issue also since they came out with being able to undo a move in aq. If you are having issue with map 6. That’s on the player. As my alliance runs map 6 all 5 days. Every bg is in section 3 before midnight east. So you telling me you have players that don’t come on for 14 hours to clear their lines? If that case find new players. If it’s an item issue. Again find new players that don’t use items. Map 6 is easier then 5 is
I already addressed most of this in a previous part of the thread. So, I’ll keep it simple.
I think 10 path sections should be reserved for the highest Maps. I think Map 6 can be reduced to 8 paths and it would help a lot of alliances move up to a higher Map. If that’s too easy for you and your alliance, Map 7 exists. However, I think most people already running Map 6 would enjoy the reduced stress.
We are casual, but Map 5 is too easy. Map 6 requires too many people to be available 5 out of every 8 days. Are we going to keep having this discussion when 7 star champs are available?
At some point, changes have to be made to adjust for the power creep. I’m suggesting that time is now.
You know that you'd have to remove more than just 2 fights right? There's 4 fights that make up that middle 2 paths.
While were at it, let's reduce map 5 to 4 paths each because super casual alliances just don't have the time to commit to it.
Wow, it's like Bocksarox is talking to a wall here. Or a few walls.
This idea is great. Map 6 used to be THE map to run. That's no longer the case. It only makes sense to adjust the map for QOL considerations. They've done it with lots of other content. Why not for an AQ map?
I think all the maps need redesigned. For QoL I would drop out any spaces without fights (or have open spaces cost 0 energy to move over). With time zones, staying up an extra 45 minutes to 1.5 hours to drop a link, when you rolled over 2 or 3 open energy sink spaces in the process to get there does not require additional skill or enjoyment...just staying up longer.
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.
You don't need all 10 to explored Map 5, and that doesn't mean all 10 aren't committed thus players in Map 5 alliances aren't committed. Besides roster restrictions, Map5 offers a different level of commitment (thus certain player groups that you can arguably call casual) which is not at the same level of commitment for Map 6, 7 and 8. Since Map 8 is here, the advocate is that Map 6 which have had it tickets entry already removed be group with map 5 level of commitment to reflect the game progression. Tickets and commitment level (mainly time/10-path section) and again besides roster were some two main things that prevent some Map 5 alliances from doing Map 6 and 7. Not that they wouldn't want to or can't difficulty wise, but rather different commitment levels. Now tickets are down in Map 6, so why not remove the 10 paths section/time-demand aspect? I think it's a fair and logical reasoning.
If map 6 is opened to more alliance by having less paths then someone doing act 6 now will get knocked out of tank rewards. I am not sure that is fair. They can manage map 6 now but will take a hit with the change. Your argument might be to tell them to do map 7. I don’t think resolving your need to be able to run map 6 should force another alliance into a decision to run a harder map and hurt their QOL.
You are acting like map 6 is time consuming. I take it you haven’t played it since you have 6 energy at start and 45 min timers. Having 10 paths in section 3 is not an issue also since they came out with being able to undo a move in aq. If you are having issue with map 6. That’s on the player. As my alliance runs map 6 all 5 days. Every bg is in section 3 before midnight east. So you telling me you have players that don’t come on for 14 hours to clear their lines? If that case find new players. If it’s an item issue. Again find new players that don’t use items. Map 6 is easier then 5 is
I already addressed most of this in a previous part of the thread. So, I’ll keep it simple.
I think 10 path sections should be reserved for the highest Maps. I think Map 6 can be reduced to 8 paths and it would help a lot of alliances move up to a higher Map. If that’s too easy for you and your alliance, Map 7 exists. However, I think most people already running Map 6 would enjoy the reduced stress.
We are casual, but Map 5 is too easy. Map 6 requires too many people to be available 5 out of every 8 days. Are we going to keep having this discussion when 7 star champs are available?
At some point, changes have to be made to adjust for the power creep. I’m suggesting that time is now.
You know that you'd have to remove more than just 2 fights right? There's 4 fights that make up that middle 2 paths.
While were at it, let's reduce map 5 to 4 paths each because super casual alliances just don't have the time to commit to it.
If the devs keep adding maps like they seem to want to do, one day that will become a necessity. Not today, certainly, but one day. Because casual alliances have to be able to do something, and while we could point them to map 3 when there were only five maps, it is hard to do that with a straight face when there are eight maps, and when the day comes when we have ten or twelve maps that will be ludicrous.
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.
Let me get this straight... you are suggesting that two paths (both consisting of one fight each) be removed from map 6 in order to make the map a LITTLE less demanding in terms of participation (not difficulty) since map 8 now exists? Which in essence, will make map 6 a LITTLE more accesible to more casual participants since it won't demand the entire alliance's full participation throughout the entire map?
What is this sense you are talking man? Go away with your logical and progressive thinking! **insert T'Challa "we don't do that over here" meme**
You are acting like map 6 is time consuming. I take it you haven’t played it since you have 6 energy at start and 45 min timers. Having 10 paths in section 3 is not an issue also since they came out with being able to undo a move in aq. If you are having issue with map 6. That’s on the player. As my alliance runs map 6 all 5 days. Every bg is in section 3 before midnight east. So you telling me you have players that don’t come on for 14 hours to clear their lines? If that case find new players. If it’s an item issue. Again find new players that don’t use items. Map 6 is easier then 5 is
I already addressed most of this in a previous part of the thread. So, I’ll keep it simple.
I think 10 path sections should be reserved for the highest Maps. I think Map 6 can be reduced to 8 paths and it would help a lot of alliances move up to a higher Map. If that’s too easy for you and your alliance, Map 7 exists. However, I think most people already running Map 6 would enjoy the reduced stress.
We are casual, but Map 5 is too easy. Map 6 requires too many people to be available 5 out of every 8 days. Are we going to keep having this discussion when 7 star champs are available?
At some point, changes have to be made to adjust for the power creep. I’m suggesting that time is now.
You know that you'd have to remove more than just 2 fights right? There's 4 fights that make up that middle 2 paths.
While were at it, let's reduce map 5 to 4 paths each because super casual alliances just don't have the time to commit to it.
If the devs keep adding maps like they seem to want to do, one day that will become a necessity. Not today, certainly, but one day. Because casual alliances have to be able to do something, and while we could point them to map 3 when there were only five maps, it is hard to do that with a straight face when there are eight maps, and when the day comes when we have ten or twelve maps that will be ludicrous.
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.
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
How is the number of paths make it more difficult? All you need to do is read the nodes and make sure you can counter them right / play it right..
Edit: Map6 can still be done casually and can casually still be 100%. Boss can be taken down noded too.
Why is exploration so important to you? If you have 17 6r3’s that 1 extra Map 6 crystal really isn’t moving the needle at all. The better rewards are in the milestone and rank rewards. You just need completion for those.
Why do you want to increase the jump in difficulty from Map 6 to Map 7? It’s already a pretty big jump coordinating paths when you first start. Or are you advocating for a Map 7 change as well?
I'm advocating that the increase in time commitment be moved to Map 7, if that's how you want to look at it.
Map 3 - 5 lanes
Map 4 - 7 lanes
map 5 - 8 lanes
map 6 - 10
map 7....
Not really sure what your issue is for timing on map6. Its easy enough as it is. If you cant 100% it then your better off doin d lower maps.
If you want challenge on lower maps then use champs of lower rarity.
If its just a few people that really want a challenge then go join a team that are still doin M6 and can 100% it.
I struggle with this one, because on the one hand I believe in the principle of something for everyone, not everything for someone. We have eight AQ maps, asking for one map to be changed just to accommodate a small group of players when reasonable alternatives are available is something I would never do without an extremely good reason. I do have a reason: I feel that this escalation along with things like the way alliance war works acts as overly strong homogenization pressure on alliances, and that is not just bad for the players it is bad for the game: alliances are a form of engagement tool, but the more you make alliance membership purely utilitarian, the less loyalty people feel and the less engagement you get from them. This is not the best design decision for a game like this.
But is this a good enough reason? I honestly don't know. And "I don't know" is no.
At the end of the day, I do the best I can with the tools available. I run Map 5/4/1 every week, because this allows me to accommodate the time constraints on my members. I could sleep walk through Map 6, but I do what's best for the alliance. And the alliance members know this, they are only here because they accept the alliance might not be getting the best rewards, but the slack it has is something everyone benefits from when they balance the game and the rest of their life. This is not easy. But it is possible. Part of enjoying a game like this is playing it on your terms.
I will say this: if the devs made Map 6 easier by reducing the battlegroup load (i.e. reducing path count) then I'd start doing it. But I wouldn't feel anything about it. It would just be a purely numbers decision. If my alliance ever reached a point where we could do Map 6 as it is now, I would switch to it and I would feel something about that. I would feel like I accomplished something. When I restructured my alliance to what it is now, I had to rebuild it. At one point I had 14 members. I was struggling to do two map 3s. I felt great when we started doing map 4 again. I was really happy when we started doing map 5 again. Consistently completing map 5 and map 4 felt like an accomplishment. Because we moved up to the content, the content didn't come down to us (and I realize the maps have changed over time, in some cases to make them simpler to run).
At the end of the day, in my opinion it isn't rewards that sustain most players, it is the sense of accomplishment. Rewards can contribute to that, and without rewards there is no way to progress, but if players don't feel like they are accomplishing something all the rewards in the game will feel hollow. Every time something gets easier, some of the possibility for accomplishment gets removed from the game. We may never get to Map 6, but someone out there will. An alliance out there is running Map 6 for the very first time this week, when they thought they couldn't last week. If we make Map 6 easier, we're helping some alliances who would otherwise never get there. But we would be taking that away from the players that do get there. You have to really believe it is worth it to do that. And at this moment in time, I'm not convinced it is.
To me, making this change would open the door to more people to feel that sense of accomplishment.
I could be wrong. I don't have the data, but I assume that there is a significant number of the player base that runs Map 5. I don't think making Map 6 less exclusive (maybe not the right word) would take away from anyone's sense of accomplishment that is already running Map 6. If that Map became too easy for them, a Map 7 already exists. Then, a Map 8.
The usual suspects are showing up to debate, though, and that's just putting more eye balls on this topic. I appreciate that.
6k T2A
13k T4B
21k of various T4CC
And that’s assuming you miss exploration in every single BG on all 5 days.
Doesn’t seem like much to me when you weigh that against the 6k T5B and 5k T2A that you get by going from Rank 2,201-2,800 to Rank 1,701-2,200. And that doesn’t even include the extra Glory or extra Milestone rewards that you’d get as well.
I do think you should reconsider how important exploration is. Just my 2 cents.
Also, your second comment makes it seem like you think time commitment should only be increased once across all of Maps 5-8. That doesn’t make much sense to me. I really don’t see why increasing the gap between Map 6 and Map 7 would be a good thing for the game mode overall.
A QOL change was that they changed to starting with full energy instead of 3 or 4.
I think 10 path sections should be reserved for the highest Maps. I think Map 6 can be reduced to 8 paths and it would help a lot of alliances move up to a higher Map. If that’s too easy for you and your alliance, Map 7 exists. However, I think most people already running Map 6 would enjoy the reduced stress.
We are casual, but Map 5 is too easy. Map 6 requires too many people to be available 5 out of every 8 days. Are we going to keep having this discussion when 7 star champs are available?
At some point, changes have to be made to adjust for the power creep. I’m suggesting that time is now.
While were at it, let's reduce map 5 to 4 paths each because super casual alliances just don't have the time to commit to it.
This idea is great. Map 6 used to be THE map to run. That's no longer the case. It only makes sense to adjust the map for QOL considerations. They've done it with lots of other content. Why not for an AQ map?
What is this sense you are talking man? Go away with your logical and progressive thinking!
**insert T'Challa "we don't do that over here" meme**
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.
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.