A little while back, I had the opportunity to submit some questions to AMG for a written interview. I’m excited to say we got answers back from none other than Michael Plummer himself, the Game Development Manager! I even think we are breaking a little bit of news here, but more on that later.
Following each question and response, I’ve added in some blue, italicized text with any additional thoughts I have after the answer. I hope you enjoy!
The Shatterpoint demos at AdeptiCon 2023 were the first opportunity for many prospective players (including myself) to get hands-on experience with the game. Once the game started getting played in the wild, was there anything you saw that was different from what you intended or surprised you in any significant way?
It’s always really exciting when a game first releases and we get a chance to watch communities start to form and players start playing games and experimenting with different combinations on the tabletop. The most surprising thing, for me, was watching conversations about the game where players were talking about strike team composition. The number of folks we saw turning down advice that would create a more optimal configuration, even in traditionally more competitive spaces, because it wouldn’t fit the thematic story for their squad that they had come up with in their head was pretty staggering. There are always people who do that, I am usually one of them, but this was a lot of people. It was really cool to see, and it’s a testament to how much people really connect with these characters and want to tell their own new stories about them on the battlefield.
I am definitely more optimization-focused rather than theme-focused when it comes to strike team composition. That being said, I do appreciate how, in Shatterpoint, the tag synergies are set up that thematic lists can also be very strong. There are certainly cases where something very unthematic combos well, like Vader and Obi-Wan from the first duel pack, but I think those are some rare-ish exceptions. I also feel like themed lists have become stronger as the game as evolved and factions have become a bit more fleshed out. Speaking personally, I’ll generally play whatever is good and fun, but I certainly enjoy it more when that is something thematic.
Considering the above, as development continues on new missions and units, are there any aspects of the game that you’ve changed your approach on? Are there any areas where you’ve doubled down on your initial approach?
From the very beginning, the goal was always for Shatterpoint to be action-driven and character-focused with a “Saturday morning cartoon” vibe. As we’ve continued working on the game and seeing how players interact with it, we’ve maintained that goal as a “lighthouse” when making decisions. When we’re creating new Units for the game, our focus is not only on creating interesting and mechanically sound gameplay but on connecting those mechanics to the characters in recognizable ways. Players expect characters like Ahsoka Tano and Asajj Ventress to jump around the battlefield and for Darth Vader to feel imposing and inevitable. We all push ourselves to find ways that each Unit can showcase their personality during gameplay and we redouble our efforts on that every time we make something new, because we are just so excited at the opportunity to do something new and different that brings another part of Star Wars to life in this space.
Missions are a place where we change our approach often. Each Mission is an opportunity to try something different or to add another layer of interest and complexity on top of the game. We try to keep the themes pretty broad for the standard missions most of the time, so that players can tell a story of their own design inside of that framework if they so choose, but then we also get the chance to do things like Key Operations or the upcoming Legendary Encounters format where the missions are a bit more “honed in” on specific themes from across Star Wars media. Those new formats are such a fun opportunity for us and for players to have fun playing Shatterpoint in exciting and engaging new ways. Working on all of those different kinds of missions, the ideas in one usually find their way into the others, where they can and create a really satisfying menu of options for how players want to have fun on any given game night.
Ahsoka and Darth Vader are definitely two interesting callouts here. Despite having three versions of each, I think they all have unique flavours. All three Vaders are imposing, to steal Michael’s term, but they all do it in a different way. More on Ahsoka in our next question …
This is intentionally a bit vague: what unit so far do you feel is the most “Shatterpoint-y” in its design?
That’s a tough one. Great question. It’s really hard to pick just one, but I’m going to have to go with Ahsoka Tano. Not one specific Unit, but all three of the Ahsoka Units. I could equally say Darth Vader or Leia Organa here, as well, on account of there are also three versions of those characters in the game. Ahsoka has been in the game since day one, though, so that’s my answer. When we talk about Shatterpoint Units we often talk about them being “snapshots” of the characters. When we watch through all the media where Ahsoka is present, we get to watch her grow up and change as a person. We see all the lessons that she learns from various teachers and adversaries along the way. The Units in Shatterpoint let us take a “snapshot” of Ahsoka from various moments in her story and then put that on the table. The Units fight differently, they act differently, the player gets to say different cool quotes from the character while they are playing the game depending on which one they put in their strike team. For me, that’s cool and that’s fun. Whenever I get a chance to put Ahsoka on the table, any of them, I know I am gonna have a good time whether I win or lose because I love the character when I watch the shows and I know I’m going to have that same fun watching her jump fearlessly around the battlefield.
I’ll be honest, if someone asked me this question I don’t know what I’d say. Did Mr. Plummer cheat by choosing three units instead of one? Probably, but we’ll give him a pass because I like his rationale! All Ahsokas are very mobile on the battlefield, but each do it a bit differently. Her dynamic style can certainly fits well with the vibe of Shatterpoint. Good choice, Michael!
Shatterpoint doesn’t technically have factions, but they still kind of exist and can have identifiable themes. For example, revenge seems to be a main feature of the Rebel Alliance tag, whereas Galactic Empire is more apt to damage their own units for special benefits. In the design process, how do you balance the considerations of these “factions” while also recognizing the mix-and-match nature of the squad-building system?
There are countless angles to approach developing a new Unit from. Some of us think about the mechanics first, while others focus on character and theme initially, but one thing that we all do consistently is just think about Star Wars, think about the Unit that we’re making, and think about what other characters and Units they interact with in the media. Then we want to make sure that, when you play those things together on the tabletop, they do something. That something doesn’t necessarily have to be the most powerful thing in the game, but it should be interesting and it should be fun. Once we know that’s working, our playtesters are very eager to take these fun new Units we’ve come up with, pair them with the Units we came up with in the past, and proceed to completely demolish their opponent and provide us a detailed description of why and how. Fixing any “problem” interactions without losing the core theme and fun of the Unit is the “meat and potatoes” of game development. It’s the fun part. The part that I think is closest to “art” in what we do.
For Shatterpoint, specifically, we’ve built the Tag system in a way that allows for generalists, it allows for specialists, it provides benefits for including Units that have interacting Tags in your strike team. Some Units work really well independent of Tags, while others really want you to have a lot of synergies built into your list. Players mixing and matching and innovating is part of the fun and leaving avenues for that is a big focus for the team when we’re looking at how any given Unit is developed over time.
Not much to say here, this all makes sense! The mix and match nature of Shatterpoint is definitely a feature, not a bug, and it sounds like it’s kept in mind throughout the process. You can definitely tell some units are designed to fit in specific tag synergies while others are meant to be more splashable.
Shifting Priorities was a nice, straightforward starting mission released in the core set. Sabotage Showdown and Never Tell Me the Odds added some fancy bells and whistles, but at their core they all rely on the same area-control mechanics. Does the objective/contesting structure of Shatterpoint feel at all limiting when it comes to mission design?
Those three missions create a solid base for the game with varied objective layouts and game mechanics available to players. As we keep working on missions for the game, we try not to feel overly limited or constrained in what we’re doing. The core objective control in the game does what we want it to, which is great, but we’ve also started playing those core ideas already. First Contact, for example, puts four more objectives on the table than the other missions do and doesn’t use the priority objective system. When we’re designing missions for the game, we’re always looking at how we can expand the gameplay, and we try new and different things all the time. There are a lot of concepts that we’re working on that we haven’t quite figured out just yet, but when we do, we are excited to add them to the game and continue to expand on the Shatterpoint gameplay experience.
The development team here at Atomic Mass Games are all great contributors and one of the best things about the job is that any of us can bring ideas to the table and we will talk through them together, put something together, and play it out. Sometimes it’s great, sometimes it’s a catastrophe, but we all keep bringing ideas and trying new things. The only real limitation on what we can do in the game is what we’ve figured out so far and what we’re comfortable putting into the game’s “ecosystem” at any given time.
As a note, these questions were submitted prior to the First Contact reveals/release. It definitely feels the most different compared to any other objective and pushes the boundaries in new and interesting ways. While I’m not sure yet whether I like it personally (I think I just need more reps), I’ve already seen lots of positive feedback on First Contact and I think the creativity bodes well for future missions.
There are many ways to play Shatterpoint, as evidenced by the Key Operations and (in testing) Galactic Legends modes. However, I’m partial to competitive play, so I’ll stick a few questions in about that. The first concerns the Premiere Showdown format: the so called “2×2” approach (two completely separate strike teams that don’t intermingle) thus far seems to be the most popular and effective approach to Premiere list building. Is there any discussion of altering the rules to bring more viability to lists that focus on flexible pairings rather than the 2×2 style?
We keep an eye on the tournament formats and community discussion, absolutely. The meta that has emerged favoring this “2×2” approach certainly may exist, but the option to build for flexible strike teams with answers to various situations is also possible, but can be punishing if the pairings don’t pit the player against varied strategies. It can still be very satisfying to play in that way, and some players favor that flexibility, or maybe even they just want to play four different strike teams on a Saturday afternoon, and a Premiere Showdown is an easy way for them to do that. When we talk about competitive players, there will always be an option that is the “best.” Undeniably, players who are competing with a sole focus on winning an event are going to gravitate toward the strategies that further that goal. If and when that play pattern creates stagnance or problematic interactions, we’ll make changes either to the format or to Units that are creating negative play experiences.
I certainly recognize there will always be something that “best” when it comes to competitive play. The Worlds results, like many events before it, have shown pretty conclusively that 2×2 is the preferred approach for competitive players. However, my personal opinion is that 2×2 is much more boring than the alternatives. I’d love to see a tweak to Premiere Showdown that closes the gap between 2×2 and everything else by introducing a little more agency for counter-picking or picking based on the objective. While the above answer doesn’t rule out any such change, I get the impression it probably isn’t a top concern at the moment.
Time limits are a necessity for organized play, but ideally no game ends due to the clock. Mission Critical helps there, but if games do clock out then the tiebreaker rules are massively in favour of the player who took the last turn. Consequently, this can encourage slow play late in the game, which can be a grey area that’s hard to manage. Are the tiebreaker rules something that may be revisited in the future?
Everything is open to be revisited in the future with regards to these formats and tiebreakers, but we don’t want to make changes too quickly or ones that we don’t think put the game in a better place. We have to assume, when we write rules, that players are going to act in good faith and play the game without resorting to tactics like slow play. The rules don’t tell players not to cheat, but players know it is wrong to cheat. Slow play falls in that same category, and if a player is dragging out decision making and trying to run down the clock on their opponent, they are not playing in the spirit of the game. The unfortunate reality is that no matter what tiebreaker we put in the game, there will be people who manipulate their play patterns to win the game based on those tiebreakers. We can only hope to create communities where competitors feel inspired to put their best foot forward and compete with integrity, playing to the best of their ability without utilizing outside influences (such as the clock) for advantage. We’re certainly open to making changes to tiebreakers in the future, but in a competitive setting where your opponent is manipulating their play pattern to gain advantage based on tiebreakers, the best course of action is to call a judge.
Cheating definitely sucks, and I don’t think too many players are intentionally slow playing. However, clocking out can still happen in games where both players are working in good faith, and the tiebreakers can really feel bad. I hope these get examined in the future, but, similar to the Premiere rules, my impression is that this may not be a big priority right now. And, as Michael notes, don’t hesitate to call a judge if needed! They are there to help.
Terrain can have a massive impact on the game. The number of elevated objectives, the availability of ingress, and the accessibility of “home” objectives are all important factors that can influence the game. I personally think the official terrain is a great benchmark for useability, but it can still be arranged in better or worse ways. Is there any appetite for official recommendations/guidelines when it comes to arranging tables for events?
Terrain is definitely a huge part of Shatterpoint, that’s why there is so much of it in the core set. That being said, different players are going to have terrain collections that look very different from one another. Some people love building custom tables or terrain features, while others prefer to play solely on official terrain. We don’t want to exclude anyone from being able to play the game, and we want people to be able to use their existing terrain from years as a hobbyist or the cool things that they make in their free time to play the game. One of the problems with official guidelines for terrains is that they can create a sentiment in communities that there is a “right way” to play the game and that if someone’s table doesn’t have the correct pieces of terrain, or if their table is more dense than we suggest that they are playing the game “wrong.” That being said, this doesn’t mean that we are entirely opposed to the idea of guidelines or recommendations, just that we need to be deliberate and careful about how we put something like that into place if it is going to be official, so that we don’t end up alienating players and hobbyists with robust terrain collections.
I definitely get where Mr. Plummer is coming from here. Any official guidance could be taken too strictly, even if the intention was to provide something more open and loose. As such, I definitely understand and appreciate that they’d want to be “deliberate and careful” with their approach if it were to happen.
We started these questions off by looking backwards a bit, so let’s end by looking forward. What excites you the most about the future of Shatterpoint?
In the very short term, I can’t wait for the upcoming Unit Updates that are coming at the beginning of May. A lot of really hard work went into those updates from the dev team and our external playtesters, and we’re really proud of how they shaped up in the end. We’ve also been playing a lot of Galactic Legends internally in the lead up to the playtest events at AdeptiCon and that format is just a lot of fun to play, so I’m excited to see that in its final form go out into the world where more people will get to play it. Beyond that, I can’t say too much specific, but more than anything I’m just excited to see people enjoy the game and playing all the cool stuff we get to spend our days making.
I think we have some breaking news here! As far as I’m aware, this is the first time we’ve gotten a timeline for the updates more specific than simply “in May.” The beginning of May isn’t too far off, so that’s very exciting! Much like Michael, I cannot wait for these changes, and I’m sure many people feel the same way. Other than that, I’m definitely intrigued by the Galactic Legends format. I ended up not testing it at Adepticon, but I have heard good things about MCP’s equivalent mode, so we’ll keep an eye out for that down the line.
Anyway, that’s it for our first developer interview! I hope you enjoyed it, I think I did an OK job with the questions and Michael definitely gave some thorough and thoughtful answers. Thanks again to Atomic Mass Games and everyone who helped make this possible.
