Too RNG based

[palabyrinth]

Just lost 8 because of a location that has 25% chance to destroy even though opponent played cards in that location all game and nothing happened to them. Only reason I lost on 6th turn. Im done

edit: RNG actually caused a difference of 16 because i wouldve gained 8

[Peanutman]

yea as time goes on i'm really starting to dislike rng. i think to myself, "it's a 50/50 to win this game" like 95% of the time, whether it be due to a location or just having 2 separate locations that could win you the game. it's honestly something that's starting to put the idea in my head that i'll really hate this game in the long run.

I've seen a lot of people say, "if you have bad rng just escape" as if escaping every 2 games is something that is considered enjoyable

[palabyrinth]

Originally posted by µ:

yea as time goes on i'm really starting to dislike rng. i think to myself, "it's a 50/50 to win this game" like 95% of the time, whether it be due to a location or just having 2 separate locations that could win you the game. it's honestly something that's starting to put the idea in my head that i'll really hate this game in the long run.

I've seen a lot of people say, "if you have bad rng just escape" as if escaping every 2 games is something that is considered enjoyable

Yes and no escaping the rng in this case. I dont think im going to touch the game again honestly

[MKCrushes]

aGREED makes this game really bad

[mindcrash]

Every location could have a advantage or disadvantage wrt your deck. Proper deck building and clever thinking matters a lot in this game, even a lot more than your average TCG me thinks.

In this particular case you could for example do the following:

- Drop cards who want to be destroyed on this location. You either get the buff from the destruction or points (Nova, Bucky)
- Drop cards which can't get destroyed on this location (Armor, Colossus)
- Gamble and drop Scarlet Witch to change the buff/debuff
- Drop Squirrel Girl on another location and quickly win this one (Especially if your opponent does not want to gamble and does not have cards like Nova, Bucky, Colossus or Armor)
- If you do not have Squirrel Girl, but do have Nightcrawler move him to it (moving != playing)
- If you have Vision in your deck, play on another location then move him to it (same reason)
- Leave the location blank and play Mister Fantastic next to it.
- ...

[Lambi]

Originally posted by mindcrash:

Every location could have a advantage or disadvantage wrt your deck. Proper deck building and clever thinking matters a lot in this game, even a lot more than your average TCG me thinks.

In this particular case you could for example do the following:

- Drop cards who want to be destroyed on this location. You either get the buff from the destruction or points (Nova, Bucky)
- Drop cards which can't get destroyed on this location (Armor, Colossus)
- Gamble and drop Scarlet Witch to change the buff/debuff
- Drop Squirrel Girl on another location and quickly win this one (Especially if your opponent does not want to gamble and does not have cards like Nova, Bucky, Colossus or Armor)
- If you do not have Squirrel Girl, but do have Nightcrawler move him to it (moving != playing)
- If you have Vision in your deck, play on another location then move him to it (same reason)
- Leave the location blank and play Mister Fantastic next to it.
- ...

Difference being that you would need these cards in your deck beforehand. And you don't know what locations a game will have. The locations could just as easily make all cards you listed absolutely useless instead. I'd argue it has even less thinking than most TCG because of this overbearing focus on RNG.

[Raster]

Wait until OP discovers coin flips that have been around in TCG's since the beginning.

[Peanutman]

Originally posted by Raster:

Wait until OP discovers coin flips that have been around in TCG's since the beginning.

yea, coin flips that dont usually determine the game. in marvel snap, almost every game has a coin flip that determines the outcome due to the short and fast paced nature of the gameplay. in hearthstone, for example, you can definitely lose to rng but there's enough decision making throughout that minimizes risk to a reasonable level. you don't really get that in this game, whether you draw poorly or have awkward locations. I think the developers even admit this flaw hence the addition of an escape feature

[Lambi]

Originally posted by Raster:

Wait until OP discovers coin flips that have been around in TCG's since the beginning.

This is the most common response that I see all the time in response to complaints about the RNG. It's as if everything has to be black and white. It has to be on either sides of the extremes apparently.

Other TCG are in no way even close to being as heavy with its RNG as this game is. Yes every card game has RNG that may heavily swing games, such as card draws. But not only does this game have the same RNGs, they have additional ones in the form of locations. Which can alone just decide the game.

Take Hearthstone for instance. Yeah sure you can get godawful draws and maybe you went first so you don't get the coin that you needed to combo. But ultimately, no matter how much the RNG screws you, it's the opponent that finishes you off. You lose the game because of what the opponent played.

In this game, you can actually lose from something that was out of your own control as well as the opponents. You can genuinely lose even if the opponent has a single brain cell because X-Mansion decided to give you Quicksilver and him The Infinaut as well as other fun RNG events.

[Raster]

Originally posted by Lambi:

Originally posted by Raster:

Wait until OP discovers coin flips that have been around in TCG's since the beginning.

This is the most common response that I see all the time in response to complaints about the RNG. It's as if everything has to be black and white. It has to be on either sides of the extremes apparently.

Other TCG are in no way even close to being as heavy with its RNG as this game is. Yes every card game has RNG that may heavily swing games, such as card draws. But not only does this game have the same RNGs, they have additional ones in the form of locations. Which can alone just decide the game.

Take Hearthstone for instance. Yeah sure you can get godawful draws and maybe you went first so you don't get the coin that you needed to combo. But ultimately, no matter how much the RNG screws you, it's the opponent that finishes you off. You lose the game because of what the opponent played.

In this game, you can actually lose from something that was out of your own control as well as the opponents. You can genuinely lose even if the opponent has a single brain cell because X-Mansion decided to give you Quicksilver and him The Infinaut as well as other fun RNG events.

It's usually black or white because the people making these complaints want absolute control over draw order, play order, effect order, and they also want to see what the opponent does and be able to react to it. Barely anyone says there should be less RNG. They lost because they didn't retreat on Ego and now they're mad and want it ALL gone. An extreme take gets an extreme response. Nothing else is worthwhile.

There's a point where complaining that apples taste like apples when they could be more like oranges is an indicator that this isn't the fruit for you, or that you're taking fruit too seriously. "But we should be allowed to discuss apples, it's important!" Sure. But if the discussion gets to the point where all you're doing is saying you wish this apple was more like an orange, what are the chances of that happening? Do you see a reality where Second Dinner goes ah, ♥♥♥♥, we need to pivot on the entire game and seriously reduce how random it is?

You don't like random. Lots of folks do. Feel free to discuss it all you want, but it's never going to be an apple. It's always going to be a fun, zesty orange that you can take seriously to the point of developing acid reflux, or you can accept that not every orange is going to be perfect, and look forward to the next one, because even the wrecked ones are interesting.

[Lambi]

Originally posted by Raster:

Originally posted by Lambi:

This is the most common response that I see all the time in response to complaints about the RNG. It's as if everything has to be black and white. It has to be on either sides of the extremes apparently.

Other TCG are in no way even close to being as heavy with its RNG as this game is. Yes every card game has RNG that may heavily swing games, such as card draws. But not only does this game have the same RNGs, they have additional ones in the form of locations. Which can alone just decide the game.

Take Hearthstone for instance. Yeah sure you can get godawful draws and maybe you went first so you don't get the coin that you needed to combo. But ultimately, no matter how much the RNG screws you, it's the opponent that finishes you off. You lose the game because of what the opponent played.

In this game, you can actually lose from something that was out of your own control as well as the opponents. You can genuinely lose even if the opponent has a single brain cell because X-Mansion decided to give you Quicksilver and him The Infinaut as well as other fun RNG events.

It's usually black or white because the people making these complaints want absolute control over draw order, play order, effect order, and they also want to see what the opponent does and be able to react to it. Barely anyone says there should be less RNG. They lost because they didn't retreat on Ego and now they're mad and want it ALL gone. An extreme take gets an extreme response. Nothing else is worthwhile.

There's a point where complaining that apples taste like apples when they could be more like oranges is an indicator that this isn't the fruit for you, or that you're taking fruit too seriously. "But we should be allowed to discuss apples, it's important!" Sure. But if the discussion gets to the point where all you're doing is saying you wish this apple was more like an orange, what are the chances of that happening? Do you see a reality where Second Dinner goes ah, ♥♥♥♥, we need to pivot on the entire game and seriously reduce how random it is?

You don't like random. Lots of folks do. Feel free to discuss it all you want, but it's never going to be an apple. It's always going to be a fun, zesty orange that you can take seriously to the point of developing acid reflux, or you can accept that not every orange is going to be perfect, and look forward to the next one, because even the wrecked ones are interesting.

Where in this post did they ever make such a point? Nowhere, you just pulled it out of your ass. I have quite literally never seen anyone ever make such a point when they have criticized the RNG. They aren't saying they want RNG completetly gone. They want it to have less of an impact in the overall state of a match. This can be achieved easily without actually removing the RNG altogether.

You're still just being so extremely black and white it's like you're trying to parody the ones you criticize. And you don't do it very well. Just because the heavy RNG on locations gets complained about, doesn't mean the ones that complains want the locations gone or devoid of RNG. They can just be tweaked.

It's like you actually don't understand anyone's point so you're just pulling things out of your ass with the most black and white take that you can conjure up under the guise of "well hurr durr extreme takes warrants extreme responses" when the criticism clearly just went way over your head.

People complaining about RNG and then using for instance X-Mansion as an example where you can get Infinaut vs Quicksilver. Your mind immediatly just goes to two options, which is "Remove it" or "Keep it". Not even considering that you can change it without compromising its effect. Which is to have the cards draw from a similar pool, like same cost or same power. One person will still most likely get the stronger card, but the difference will be drastically less severe and won't result in a insta-loss of a location. It's such a simple change and the location would still be RNG.

[Wipkonijntje]

scarlet witch, rhino, storm.

just slam RNG into the ground^^

[Moogler]

Originally posted by Wipkonijntje:

scarlet witch, rhino, storm.

just slam RNG into the ground^^

"Just lose every game. If your chance to win is 0%, there's no RNG!!11!"

The game is an RNG mess and even at rank 100, people suck, but it doesn't matter because RNG is such a big deal.

Hearthstone was garbage because playing 10 turns of thought-filled strategy being decided by a coin flip was ass. The RNG in snap is bearable, because your brain can go completely on autopilot due to how simple it is and games are significantly shorter so you never invested much in the first place.

Ben Brode is good at game feel, but a terrible game designer. A better esigner would find ways to mitigate the RNG issues in a fun way, but it will never happen in any game spearheaded by him. I quit Hearthstone because it was a poorly designed game, I feel like the RNG actually fits in these fast-paced, meaningless games.

[Dregora]

I mean... the question begs is, if he goes deep on that location, why try to follow in his footsteps? You only have to win two locations. If he's going balls deep on that RNG location, take the other two? Fight for them?

[Peanutman]

Originally posted by Wipkonijntje:

scarlet witch, rhino, storm.

just slam RNG into the ground^^

storm is good but i think scarlet witch and rhino are terrible cards

[HighLanderPony]

Expecting a game by Brode to be not RNG heavy is like expecting hellfire to not burn you.