Create structured scaling with exactly 3 tiers.
Progression = increasing stakes in controlled steps. Not infinite scaling — defined tiers. Each tier increases both risk and reward. Three tiers keep Version 1 manageable.
Tier 1 (Low Threat): riskLevel < 2. Base enemy power 5–10. XP reward ×1.
Tier 2 (Medium Threat): riskLevel 2–4. Enemy power 10–15. XP reward ×2.
Tier 3 (High Threat): riskLevel > 4. Enemy power 15–25. XP reward ×3.
Tier 1 (Small Homes): karma 0–99. Low build cost, low payout.
Tier 2 (Medium Builds): karma 100–299. Medium cost/payout. Medium debt risk.
Tier 3 (Major Projects): karma 300+. High cost, high payout, high debt risk.
Tier changes visibly as progress increases. Higher tiers feel harder and more rewarding.
Exactly 3 tiers in Version 1. No sub-tiers. No dynamic difficulty adjustment.
Tiers too close together — they don't feel different. Make the jump between tiers noticeable.
Not scaling both difficulty AND reward — if Tier 3 is harder but doesn't pay more, it feels punishing, not rewarding.
Making Tier 3 impossible — high difficulty should be challenging, not unfair. Playtest each tier.
Ask: "Why 3 tiers instead of infinite scaling?" Answer: constraints create design decisions. Infinite scaling is lazy — you never have to decide when things change. Three tiers force you to define exactly when and how.