Scale for battles in GBG tiers

[Tony 85 the Generous]

My google search terms turned up nothing. So I will post and ask.

Has there been any suggestion for a scale for the sector tiers in GBG? It takes the same number to conquer a tier 1 sector as it does to conquer a tier 4 sector that produces much less. Currently, I see C1 at 200vph and C4H at 15vph. In diamond, both take 160 to conquer. Why not 140 for C4H and 170 for C1? (I just chose to add 10 per tier, could be any number)

 

[BruteForceAttack]

My google search terms turned up nothing. So I will post and ask.

Has there been any suggestion for a scale for the sector tiers in GBG? It takes the same number to conquer a tier 1 sector as it does to conquer a tier 4 sector that produces much less. Currently, I see C1 at 200vph and C4H at 15vph. In diamond, both take 160 to conquer. Why not 140 for C4H and 170 for C1? (I just chose to add 10 per tier, could be any number)

Will you accept less chances of rewards for less vp tiles in return for e.g.? Then what about build costs? should they also be scaled down?...

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Will you accept less chances of rewards for less vp tiles in return for e.g.?

What do you think? I could imagine a small difference in the chance of rewards for tier 4 versus tier 1. I'm not sure what the chances are now. I know the reward amount varies from league to league. Do the chances also currently vary league to league? (I'm thinking not, but don't know for sure)

Then what about build costs? should they also be scaled down?...

Build costs already vary tile to tile. I'm not sure the formula there.

 

[Emberguard]

Well those ring 4 provinces tend to change hands less frequently

 

[Tony 85 the Generous]

Well those ring 4 provinces tend to change hands less frequently

So a bit of a slope from tier to tier would (IMO) make the lower tiers more attractive for fighting, opposed to focusing everyone on the top. 5% slope would be 8 per tier. In diamond that would be 160, 152, 144, 136.

It's a three-fold thought.
1. The VPH is less, so the number to conquer should be as well.
2. It would make them more attractive to fight over
3. It would spread out the battle on the field a little bit.

In regards to less chance of rewards, there is two 'chances' The inherient chances of reward by the number of attacks available on the sector and the chance per attack. The reduction in attacks for a tier 4 sector means there are less times you can attack a tier 4 sector than a tier 1. But I also agree with a similar chance per attack being scaled.

 

[Agent327]

So a bit of a slope from tier to tier would (IMO) make the lower tiers more attractive for fighting, opposed to focusing everyone on the top. 5% slope would be 8 per tier. In diamond that would be 160, 152, 144, 136.

It's a three-fold thought.
1. The VPH is less, so the number to conquer should be as well.
2. It would make them more attractive to fight over
3. It would spread out the battle on the field a little bit.

In regards to less chance of rewards, there is two 'chances' The inherient chances of reward by the number of attacks available on the sector and the chance per attack. The reduction in attacks for a tier 4 sector means there are less times you can attack a tier 4 sector than a tier 1. But I also agree with a similar chance per attack being scaled.

GBG is still a relative new feature. Any changes to it you think should be worth it, can be brought forward in the feedback thread. If I remember well, something similar has already been mentioned.