HUD & Booster Bar Redesign
The in-game HUD hadn't been meaningfully redesigned in years. The booster bar sat alongside a settings button that consumed prime screen real estate. Seasonal meta features like Citrus Bee needed to inject boosters into the bar, but there was no room — the layout was rigid and couldn't accommodate dynamic content.
Settings relocation
I moved the settings button from the booster bar to the top-left HUD, freeing a full slot for boosters. My argument: the settings button's primary use case is quitting or adjusting audio/visual preferences — neither is a core gameplay action. Moving it to the HUD follows standard mobile game conventions, and the freed space directly improves the primary interaction. The level number display moved to the settings/pause screen, where it's needed for bug reporting, not active play.
Dynamic booster bar
When seasonal meta content is active (like Citrus Bee), an additional booster slot appears and all boosters resize slightly to accommodate it. When no meta content is active, boosters display at full size. The size difference between 4 and 5 boosters is minimal — not enough to affect muscle memory. The upside is significant: it bridges meta and core gameplay, giving seasonal features a functional presence on the game board rather than feeling bolted on.
HUD refresh
Cleaner visual treatment aligned with the broader presentation refresh, modernizing how the game board looks without disrupting the player's spatial model.
This was less about interaction design and more about prioritization and risk tolerance. The core question I kept pushing: does the current layout serve thrilling gameplay, or are we preserving it out of inertia? Settings is not a gameplay feature. Level numbers are not a gameplay feature. Boosters are. The redesign reflected that hierarchy.
Crush-O-Master
Candy Crush has no positive reinforcement system for skillful play on a move-to-move basis. The iconic call-outs — "Tasty!", "Sweet!", "Divine!" — still exist, but they've faded into the background. Players barely notice them. Making a brilliant move feels the same as making an ordinary one.
The game leans heavily on the stick (difficulty, spend pressure) but has stopped watering its carrots. The hypothesis: by enhancing in-level positive reinforcement, we can increase intrinsic enjoyment and reduce churn.
Revived call-out system
Increasing the visibility and prominence of call-outs due to historical player affinity and brand recognition. I proposed a chyron-style treatment — call-outs temporarily take over the top HUD similar to a news ticker or bowling animation. This gives them a prominent, defined space without overwhelming the board. The design direction emphasized fluidity: impactful and exciting, but with quick, clear motion that keeps the player focused on matching.
HUD reskin on activation
A "power mode" concept inspired by Guitar Hero's star power or Balatro's multiplier states — the HUD transforms with rainbow energy when the player hits a combo threshold. This exploration defined Crush-O-Master's rainbow aesthetic and identified screen wipe transitions that showed promise.
Yeti animations
Since the previous priorities draw more attention to the HUD, the Yeti mascot needed to react to gameplay events too. Focus on reactivity and celebration, with potential for tappability to make Yeti feel alive.
I designed three mechanical reward concepts spanning a risk spectrum from purely intrinsic (visual-only, zero SR impact) to extrinsic (mechanical rewards with difficulty implications):
Concept | Mechanic | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
Upgrader | Combo meter that auto-upgrades the next special the player creates | Medium |
Placer | Meter that places an extra special onto the board when full | Medium–High |
Laser | Meter that shoots an auto-exploding wrapped onto the board | High |
The interesting strategic question was where to sit on the intrinsic-to-extrinsic spectrum. Pure visual reinforcement is safe — it doesn't move metrics — but might not be impactful enough. Mechanical rewards are more exciting but risk affecting difficulty balance and spend rate. I framed this tradeoff explicitly in the treatment deck so product leadership could make an informed call rather than a gut-feel one.
Call-out triggers — the system was so old there was no documentation of what triggers each exclamation. Believed cascade-based, which would need to change to reward direct player actions
HUD tech debt — old codebase difficult to build on, requiring tech investigation before committing to the reskin
Cross-team dependencies — Expeditions and Presentation Refresh both modify the in-game UI; both needed to stay in sync
Accessibility — color blindness, overstimulation risk, and potential epilepsy concerns with bright flashes
In-Game Booster Conversion
New boosters were replacing legacy ones — Verticola (clears vertically) and Boxing Glove (clears horizontally) replacing the old Free Switch and Paintbrush. Mechanically it's a cleaner mental model. But you can't just swap boosters in a game where players have been hoarding inventory for years. A player with 47 Paintbrushes has an emotional attachment to that number. This is a change management problem at scale.
Pre-test preparation
Two paths for the booster shop: block purchasing of old boosters (greyed out with phaseout messaging), or keep purchases active with a warning that inventory would be converted by a specific date. I advocated for keeping purchases active — blocking before the new boosters exist in the player's game just removes options with no visible replacement.
Conversion moment
A pop-up announces the new boosters, confirms inventory conversion with bonus freebies to soften the transition, then triggers a forced tutorial to explain the new mechanics. I designed a backup reminder in the inventory screen for players who inevitably tap through without reading.
Rollout and rollback narratives
The rollback scenario — converting boosters back, compensating for the inconvenience — was just as important to design as the happy path. Rolling back without a clear narrative and some generosity would feel like the game made a mistake and hoped nobody noticed.
The framing mattered more than the flow. "Your boosters got a glow-up" vs. "We converted your inventory" are the same action described two ways, and they produce completely different emotional responses. The conversion had to feel like an upgrade, not a substitution.
How These Connect
These three features don't share a codebase or a product brief. But they share a thesis: Candy Crush's in-game experience had accumulated years of design debt, and it was time to pay it down.
HUD & Booster Bar
Modernizes the visual frame — clearing clutter and making room for dynamic content.
Crush-O-Master
Fills the emotional gap — making skillful play feel rewarding on a move-to-move basis.
Booster Conversion
Clears out legacy tools and replaces them with cleaner, more characterful alternatives.
Together, they move Candy Crush from a game that plays well but feels its age, toward something that competes with modern match-3 games on experience quality — not just content volume.
What This Work Demonstrates
Concurrent feature ownership
Sole UX designer across all three workstreams simultaneously, requiring constant context-switching and prioritization under pressure.
Defending design decisions with reasoning, not authority
The settings relocation, the dynamic booster sizing, the intrinsic-vs-extrinsic spectrum — each involved stakeholder pushback that I addressed with structured arguments.
Proactive risk identification
The call-out trigger documentation gap, the HUD tech debt, the cross-team dependencies, the accessibility concerns — surfaced before they became blockers.
Change management through design
The booster conversion isn't a UX flow — it's a communication strategy. How you tell 200M players that their stuff changed matters as much as what changed.
Systems thinking across features
The booster bar had to accommodate dynamic meta content. Crush-O-Master had to work with the HUD changes. The new boosters had to fit the refreshed booster bar's visual language. Nothing existed in isolation.
This case study describes work on Candy Crush Saga's core gameplay experience. Specific interface details have been generalized to respect proprietary information.