TLDR;
Anthony Giovannetti, co-founder of Mega Crit Games, discusses the approach to balancing Slay the Spire, a fusion of roguelikes and deck-building games. He highlights the importance of iteration, playtesting, and data collection, as well as the use of community feedback and metrics to achieve a balanced and engaging single-player experience. Key takeaways include embracing change, lowering barriers to feedback, and updating frequently to improve the game.
- Iteration and playtesting are crucial for game balance.
- Data collection and community feedback are invaluable tools.
- Early Access model allows for continuous improvement and adaptation.
- Don't be afraid to break things and make significant changes.
Introduction [0:02]
Anthony Giovannetti introduces himself as the co-founder of Mega Crit Games, the studio behind Slay the Spire. He shares his background as a card game enthusiast, detailing his love for games like Pokémon, Magic the Gathering, and Netrunner. Slay the Spire is described as a blend of roguelike and deck-building elements, where players ascend a procedurally generated spire, building a unique deck of cards with each run. The game received positive reviews and exceeded sales expectations during its early access phase, which lasted for over a year before its full launch in January. The talk will focus on the balancing process of Slay the Spire, the tools used, and the general design philosophy.
Iteration and Playtesting [1:41]
Anthony draws a parallel between game design and Picasso's artistic process, emphasising the importance of iteration and testing. He references Picasso's meticulous preparation for his famous painting, Guernica, which involved over 500 preparatory drawings. This iterative approach is how he views game design. He defines balance in Slay the Spire as ensuring every card has a purpose, whether as a build-around card or a staple. The goal isn't to make every card equally powerful, but to make them all reasonably viable. He also wanted to avoid overpowered content that could warp the game. The single-player, roguelike nature of Slay the Spire allows for more leniency with powerful combos, as long as they are rare and difficult to achieve.
Tools for Balance [6:58]
Anthony discusses the tools used to facilitate balance in Slay the Spire. Traditional methods like watching players, attending events, and internal playtesting were employed. They also expanded their playtest reach by creating an internal play tester Slack channel to streamline communication and feedback collection. A bot was used to gather feedback, bug reports, and ideas in one place, making it easy to review. Top-level Netrunner players were invited to provide high-quality feedback and encouraged to break the game. New builds with change logs were pushed out daily to keep play testers engaged.
Metrics and Data Collection [9:01]
An in-house metric server was built to collect anonymous data from players on death or victory. This included data on enemies, cards, relics, events, and player choices. This passive data collection was invaluable, especially from players who didn't actively provide feedback. Metrics allowed for objective decision-making early on. However, he cautions that metrics are just one tool and can be misleading. He uses the example of the card "Madness," which appeared to be overpowered based on data but was actually due to players acquiring it late in the game. He also notes the importance of accounting for "super play testers" who play excessively, as their data can skew averages.
Early Access Launch [12:30]
Slay the Spire launched into early access after two and a half years of development, refinement, and balance testing. The game was already balanced and near complete at launch. The early access model improved metric collection due to a larger player base and a wider skill range. Weekly updates were implemented to maintain player engagement and align expectations with the constant iteration and balance tweaks.
Discord, Ascension Levels and Streamers [14:10]
A Discord server was set up to gather feedback from a larger community, using a feedback bot to collect over 18,000 pieces of feedback. A beta branch was created for players to access daily builds, providing a layered approach to testing. Ascension levels were developed to handle differing difficulty modes, allowing for targeted changes based on player skill. Streamers and YouTubers were valuable for promoting the game and providing community feedback. Watching streamers allowed for direct insight into community sentiment and visceral reactions to cards and enemies.
Combining Feedback and Iteration [19:06]
The early access model allowed for continuous response to data and player feedback. Anthony emphasises the importance of being unafraid to break things and make significant changes. He cites the example of the daily mode, which was completely reworked after initial flaws were identified. The iterative approach paid off when developing the third character, the Defect, which was the quickest to develop due to established feedback loops and metric data.
Key Takeaways [21:49]
Anthony summarises the key takeaways from developing Slay the Spire: iterate constantly, don't be afraid to make changes, lower the barrier to feedback, and update more often. These practices lead to a better game and a more engaged player base.
Q&A [22:39]
During the Q&A session, Anthony addresses questions about balancing overpowered abilities, determining early access pricing, the decision to discard hands at the end of turns, the possibility of co-op mode, enemy design, unstructured feedback collection, daily challenges, and managing emotional load of feedback. He explains that overpowered abilities are acceptable if they are rare and difficult to achieve. The early access price was based on similar successful games like Dead Cells. The discard mechanic was inspired by deck-building board games. Enemy design was done in tandem with card design. Unstructured feedback was manually filtered and organised. Daily challenges are procedurally generated. The emotional load of feedback was managed by prioritising valuable feedback and ignoring toxic comments.
