Inside 1X2 Network: Why Math Models and Personality Drive Modern Slot

Comparasino Founder Martyn Hannah sits down with 1X2 Network CPO Alex Ratcliffe to discuss high-volatility balancing, crafting signature bonus twists, and avoiding copy-paste templates.

If you think you’ve seen every variation of the Hold & Win mechanic or standard three-pot bonus, think again. In this exclusive Comparasino interview, our Founder Martyn Hannah sits down with 1X2 Network Chief Product Officer Alex Ratcliffe to pull back the curtain on how the studio’s games actually come to life.

From injecting personality into tired templates with characters like the Crab Wizard to balancing volatile math models without sacrificing base-game entertainment, this deep-dive explores the product philosophy driving one of the industry’s most creative stables. Whether you’re a fan of high-octane bonus rounds, fast-paced arcade alternatives, or just want to know why wizards are suddenly taking over the portfolio, read on for a masterclass in modern slot design.

Iron Dog Studio’s 4 Crabbin Fortunes and 3 Shooting Stars stand out because they add unique twists, like the Crab Wizard lifesaver and crash style bonus round, rather than just cloning standard templates. How do you approach taking a licensed or popular mechanic and giving it that distinct 1X2 Network/Iron Dog Studio identity?

We start with the feeling we want the player to walk away with, not the mechanic itself. A popular mechanic like Hold & Win or a three-pot is just a proven frame for building tension. The identity comes from what you do inside that frame.

Take 4 Crabbin Fortunes. A three-board Hold & Win is familiar territory, so the question we asked was, what’s the emotional weak spot in it? It’s the moment a board runs dry one coin short and the player feels robbed. So we built the Crab Wizard. He’s a passive character who roams the feature and can step in when a board runs out of spins to gift it one more. That single idea changes the mood of the whole feature. A dead board is no longer the end, it’s a reason to keep hoping. He’s charming, he’s got personality and he’s ours.

3 Shooting Stars came at it from the other direction. We wanted the reveal itself to be the thrill. Instead of a static win number the star physically rockets up through the sky, up into space, with the win ticking higher the further it climbs. Clip a jackpot line on the way and it grabs the ribbon. It takes a simple three-pot payout and turns it into a moment you actually watch.

So the trick isn’t reinventing the mechanic. It’s being honest about what the mechanic does to a player, then adding one signature idea that only we would have done. My test is simple. If you can strip out our twist and the game still plays the same, we haven’t earned the release.

Features like Hold & Win (e.g. Train Strike, 3 Hot Chilli Peppers) are everywhere in the industry right now. How do you keep feature-hold mechanics fresh and surprising for players who might feel they’ve seen it all?

Familiarity is useful. Players can recognise a Hold & Win feature quickly and understand the basic objective. That gives us room to introduce something new without making them learn a completely different game from scratch.

The interesting part is what happens once they’re inside it. Does the feature develop as it goes on? Do the boards interact? Is there a character or an event that gives it personality? Those are much more useful questions than how many extra symbols we can put on the screen.

You also have to be willing to take things out. Three additions that all compete for attention can leave you with a less interesting game than one really good idea. I want the player to be able to tell someone what was different about it afterwards. If that takes five minutes to explain, we’ve probably overcomplicated it.

With your sub-brands like AD LUNAM exploring non-traditional and arcade-style concepts, how do you see player preferences shifting between traditional line-based slots and fast-paced alternative crash/arcade games?

I see it as a wider choice of experiences. Someone can enjoy a traditional slot and still want something with a different pace or a more direct interaction on another occasion. I wouldn’t assume those are two separate audiences.

The appeal of an arcade-style concept is often how quickly you understand what’s happening. There can be one clear action and one clear moment of anticipation. Traditional slots have their own strengths: the rhythm of the reels, the theme and the way a feature unfolds over several stages.

For me, AD LUNAM is an opportunity to explore those different experiences on their own terms. The question is whether the interaction is enjoyable and easy to understand. Putting a different interface around something doesn’t automatically make it a better game.

Slot players are constantly discussing volatility – some want insane 20,000x max win potential with high variance, while others prefer frequent bonus hits to stretch their session. How do you decide on the volatility profile and payout balance for a new game?

The starting point should be who the game is for and what sort of experience we’re trying to create. A player looking for frequent activity is asking for something quite different from someone who actively chooses a game with rarer, larger wins. Trying to satisfy both with the same model can leave neither particularly happy.

A maximum win is only one part of that conversation. It tells you the ceiling, but very little about the experience underneath it. The balance between base-game wins, feature frequency and the range of bonus outcomes matters far more to how the game actually feels.

My view is that the maths has to support the idea. If a feature is built around several stages of development, the payout model needs to give that design room to work. I wouldn’t want us choosing a headline multiplier first and then forcing the rest of the game to accommodate it.

Nothing tests a player’s patience quite like a 300-spin dry spell chasing a bonus scatter. What’s your philosophy on feature entry frequency versus the payout weight inside the bonus feature itself?

You have to design both together. At a given RTP, making a bonus more frequent means finding that return somewhere else in the model. Equally, putting too much of the return into a rare feature can leave the base game feeling very thin.

For me, the base game needs an identity of its own. There should be something to enjoy in its presentation and mechanics, even when the main feature doesn’t arrive. Then the bonus needs enough variety to justify being the centrepiece, without every entry playing out in the same way.

It’s also important to be clear about what frequency means. An average is not a countdown to the next bonus, and a long wait doesn’t mean a feature is due. We should describe the experience honestly rather than imply the game will make it up to someone.

RTP is one of the most debated topics among online slot enthusiasts. 1X2 Network titles historically lean toward strong, player-friendly RTPs. How crucial is maintaining competitive RTP rates to building long-term player trust?

It matters. Players are right to care about the value a game offers and RTP is an important part of that. I wouldn’t dismiss it as something only the most technical players understand or notice.

It needs to be explained properly. RTP describes the theoretical return over a very large amount of play; it doesn’t tell an individual player what they’ll get back in a session. Two games with the same RTP can also feel very different because of how their wins are distributed.

For me, trust comes from competitive value and clear information together. The RTP for the version someone is actually playing should be easy to find, alongside understandable rules and an honest description of the game. A strong headline percentage is useful, but the player needs to know what sits behind it.

From Pirate Chickens (3 Plucky Hens) to classic mining (Prospector Bob) and mythological beasts, your portfolio covers a massive spectrum. What comes first during game development – a cool visual theme, or a mathematical mechanic that needs a home?

Either can be the spark. Sometimes a character or a setting immediately suggests what the game should do. Other times there’s a mechanic with real potential and the creative challenge is finding a world where it feels natural.

What matters is how quickly the two start working together. A mining theme gives you obvious possibilities around uncovering, collecting and revealing. A character-led game gives you opportunities to make the feature feel like something that character would actually do. That’s where the theme starts contributing to the design.

The Crab Wizard from 4 Crabbin Fortunes is a good example of the relationship I mean. His personality and his role in the feature belong together. That’s the standard I’d want whichever side the original idea came from: the artwork helps you understand the mechanic, and the mechanic gives the artwork a purpose.

4 Crabbin Fortunes from Iron Dog Studio, part of 1X2 Network.

Can you share a feature concept or game idea that sounded incredible on paper during a brain-storming session, but completely broke during math testing or gameplay design?

It’s usually less dramatic than a brilliant idea completely breaking. Most of the features we pull are good ideas in isolation; they just don’t fit the mathematical mix for the RTP and volatility we’re trying to create.

Every feature has to find its place in that balance. If you put too many in, you can end up making some of them so infrequent that players are unlikely to experience them within a realistic period of play. On paper you’ve got a game packed with features, but the experience doesn’t reflect that.

That’s where you have to be honest about what an idea is contributing. I’d rather have fewer features with room to do their job than a longer list of things that barely happen. Sometimes the best decision for a game is taking something out, even when everyone likes the idea.

Do streamer reactions, community forum debates or direct player feedback ever influence how you tweak a game mechanic, or even shape a sequel?

They should absolutely influence the conversation. Watching somebody play can show you things a design discussion misses: where they hesitate, what they understand immediately and which moments need more explanation.

The useful part is the reason behind the reaction. If someone dislikes a bonus because the result was small, that’s different from not understanding how the result was reached. Repeated confusion about the same mechanic is a much clearer design signal than one spectacular win or one frustrated comment.

I would use that feedback to inform future games and sequels, while being careful not to design only for the loudest voices. A sequel should preserve what players recognise and enjoy, then improve the parts that caused friction. Sometimes that means a clearer reveal or better pacing rather than another feature.

What’s next for 1X2 Network? Without giving away top-secret roadmap details, what upcoming game release, mechanic or visual style are you personally most excited for players to get their hands on over the coming months?

Super Hot Chilli Peppers is the one I’d pick. It’s our first countdown game, and what excites me is the way it introduces new layers to a familiar Hold & Win experience.

The countdown unlocks mechanics in stages: extra boards, extra spins and extra prizes, followed by the Peppe Wizard lifesaver and double jackpots. That lets the game develop as those mechanics become available, rather than introducing everything at once.

The distinction is that you’re counting down to a mechanic becoming available, not to a guaranteed win. The RTP stays the same across the stages. For me, the interesting design challenge is making each new layer feel distinct while keeping the whole thing easy to follow.

And yes, we’ve found room for another wizard. You’ll probably notice a theme there.

Quickfire Questions:

1 – Favourite slot theme to work on?

Currently, anything I can introduce a wizard to. I’m really into my wizards at the moment, so if there’s a way to get one into a game, there’s a fair chance I’ll suggest it.

2 – Highest max win game currently in your portfolio?

Pirate Kingdom Megaways, with a maximum win of 25,000x the total stake.

3 – If you could only play one 1X2 Network slot for the rest of your life, which one is it and why?

I’m going to cheat slightly and pick one that isn’t out yet: 3 Porky Banks: Sky High. We first introduced this type of feature in 3 Shooting Stars, but the jackpot collection in Sky High is a real draw for me. As the pigs fly up, you collect pips towards the different jackpots. Fill all the pips for a particular jackpot during the feature and you’ve won it.

That gives me another thing to get excited about alongside the win climbing. In 3 Shooting Stars, you’re watching to see whether the star reaches a jackpot line. Here, I’m also watching where the pips land and which jackpot might complete. That change makes the feature really exciting for me. I can’t put it down.