I’m creating a tower defense game with a mechanic that lets you upgrade your towers.
The question I have is quite simple:
Which should be more cost effective?
purchasing a second tower of the same kind or
upgrading the tower instead
Upgrading the tower will increase its damage, however buying a new tower will effectively do the same thing. So as the developer what would you do in this situation?
I would feel kinda bad making them effectively the same (i.e. upgrading the tower costs as much as a new tower but doubles the damage).
Also, for this hypothetical assume the only thing being upgraded is damage.
Actually, I think that the first upgrade should be cheaper than the tower itself, but as you upgrade more, the upgrades get more OP and should cost more.
Example:
(boxed in red is the cost of the tower itself)
It depends on your game, but the tried-and-true format is…
Two beginner towers cost more than one tower upgraded once.
But as you upgrade a tower more and more, then the upgrades should gradually (or steeply) cost more until they surpass the cost of buying a second tower.
In most cases, the upgrades are cheaper, and I personally agree with this system.
While you don’t want to make the prices too low to upgrade, it just kind of depends. Everybody will have different playstyles, so I would suggest making the starter upgrades near the same price as the placement.
If you start off upgrades as cheap, subconsciously the players will begin to trust upgrades. As they give more trust spending money on cheap upgrades then slowly hike up the price while keeping the same reassurance and feeling of comfort, and then hike it up even more. At this point, the player will be more likely to feel it’s easier, more familiar, and better for them to have highly upgraded towers instead of the a lot of unupgraded ones (which is better for you for monetization, because then you can price upgrades at a high point).
They also don’t want a massive amount of towers either because human brains don’t like too many choices. So, two extremely strong towers is better in their mind than 10 basic towers, even if the strength between the two would be the same, and the upgraded towers would cost more than the 10 basic ones.
This won’t be the same psychology for all players, but you have more of a chance getting people to spend money on coins this way because you can unevenly set up the price for upgrades in comparison with many towers.
Upgrading a tower should not merely effect its damage (especially if this boost is replicated or even more efficient if you build an entirely new tower). The first thing that comes to my mind is the upgrading system for Bloons Tower Defense: instead of increasing damage, the tower gains a new behavior, such as the ability to damage enemies that were once immune to that tower.
You could further emphasize the benefits of upgrading towers by adding a tower cap: that is, a player can only have so many towers on the battlefield. (This value could also increase slightly the further the game progresses.)
