Dev Article – Playtesting Commons

Hi HEXers, Jason Zila here and today I’m here to talk to you about Commons and the role that they play in the early development of a set. Commons are often the first thing that we playtest with when we start in on a set, and there are more commons than any other rarity, making them an important foundation for the design direction of the set.

A quick word on playtesting…

From time to time, one of the responsibilities of my job as a developer on the R&D team is to proactively set an agenda for playtesting. In some circumstances this can be as easy as loading up the Dev client and battling vs the AI, in others it could involve coordinating an event that involves the R&D team as a whole for several hours, such as a draft playtest. Whatever the case may be, it should go without saying that it is important to be prepared. That is why, and as silly as this may sound, it is imperative to know; what it is that you’re playtesting and why you’re playtesting it.

Starting with commons…

When a designer from R&D sets out to create a new set, one of the first places they will start is with the Commons.

Why?

Nearly 40% of every Hex set and 60% of every HEX pack is composed of an assortment of Commons. They are the cards that a player can expect to see and interact with the most in any given Limited format. Because of this, it is incredibly important that the Commons in any given HEX set are simple to read and easy to comprehend. We usually tend to save a lot of the complexity in a set for the Uncommons, Rares, and Legendaries. The reasoning behind this is such that because the frequency at which any Uncommon, Rare, or Legendary card appears in a player’s pool is much lower than that of a Common, we tend to be a little more adventurous with the non-common designs. The same can be said for the overall potential for impact of a card. A card such as Burn for example, may be considered to be a pretty powerful Common, but its ceiling of impact on the outcome of a match is still considered relatively low when compared with cards like Scrap Rummager or War Machinist, which may accumulate a high degree of impact on a game over the course of its duration.

Commons and new mechanics

Because commons are at such a high frequency in our Limited formats, they serve as a good place for us to execute some of the simplest and cleanest executions of new design space that the set is exploring, such as with a new keyword. They also make for good initial playtesting of a new keyword or mechanic, so that we can get a sense for the keyword itself, and not get bogged down in a more complex individual execution such as might be found at a higher rarity.

We often want to playtest our draft format early on as well, so we typically do drafts with Common and Uncommon designs very early on in the life cycle of a new set, often even before any rare or legendary designs have been plugged in at all. Once we shape up the new mechanics and the commons to a place we’re happy with, we build out the higher rarities.

So what are we looking for when we playtest Commons?

While we look for all sorts of things and form all sorts of conclusions while playtesting Commons (or anything, really), these are some of the major perspectives we try to study the cards from during playtesting:

How were the play patterns and what was the fun factor of the new mechanic? A “play pattern” is a specific experience in Hex. For example, we recently tested a new mechanic that we were considering that encouraged the play pattern of attacking more frequently, since it rewarded players for attacking with their troops. We have to carefully consider whether this is making for more fun game play and a better limited format or not. Then of course, there is just the inherent fun factor/appeal/ coolness of the mechanic as it presents itself to a player/deck builder in general at face value. How complex were the new mechanics? We can usually include some amount of stuff in a set that is really complex, but we have to diligently manage maintaining the sweet spot where the set feels deep but not overwhelming. If one new mechanic is very complex, it might mean that some of the other mechanics in the set have to be a little simpler. How powerful are the cards that feature the new mechanics? We want people to be excited about the new mechanics, even as they appear on commons to some extent, and so we want to generally make sure that there is some amount of power to be found in some of the cards that feature the new mechanics. Finally, did enough individual cards designed around the mechanic seem to “work?” (Feel fun, intuitive, new, and not create bad play patterns or awkward moments…) Even if the keyword seems great in theory, it could be a bad sign if the designers are having a hard time effectively executing as many individual designs as we want. Sometimes this just means a mechanic we wanted to be very prevalent is more appropriate for a smaller cycle or an individual design.

In Conclusion…

Hopefully that gave you some interesting insight into one of the major pillars of what we do here—playtesting—within one of its many specific contexts: the role that playtesting commons plays in the design cycle of a set. From the article you can see that playtesting commons first help build the foundation to the design of the rest of the set. Commons make up most of the sets and packs and should feel fun to play and enhance what rarer cards are able to achieve in the set. Thank you for reading, we hope this has enlightened you a bit about playtesting!

Don’t forget to Follow us on Twitter, Like us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitch, and register on our forums.

Discuss this article in the forums!