Snapping and the A'holes who snap.

[Kayde Bastion]

I hate A'holes who snap. Anyone who snaps and then plays a card like Gambit early, completely ruining whatever play their opponent might have to the point where they would have no choice but to retreat is an A'hole. And a fool at that.
Like seriously, why on Earth would you do this? When you snap you're gambling on 4 to 8 cubes, you're telling your opponent "I reckon I could win this game, so I'm gonna snap. Make your move." But if you think you're gonna win all those cubes by playing Gambit by turn 3 or 4, you're an idiot. 'Cause what happens then? You're opponent thinks to themselves "oh, crap. Their Gambit just completely ruined my game winning plan. Now, I stand no chance at winning this; I'm gonna have to retreat." And now you only get half the amount of cubes you would've gotten if you weren't such a jackass! For real, why the hell would you do this? Why snap, only to ruin your opponents play so early in the game where they're forced to retreat? You only get half the cubes!

This happens so many times: I face an opponent with a counter deck, they snap, they counter my play, I'm forced to retreat, and they only win half the cubes they bet on. Why not save your grand counter for the final turn? You'll still be able to counter my game winning plan, and you could win 4-8 cubes.
So if you wanna run gambit in your deck, fine go for it. But save it for the grand finale, so you're opponent is not forced to concede early. You'll both more likely make it to the end, and you could potentially win all those cubes that were bet on.

[Gilmore]

[Kayde Bastion]

Point, Gilmore, but I do believe I've made solid a point myself: If you're gonna snap and bet on 4-8 cubes and you actually wanna win, don't force your opponent to concede early and you only win half the cubes. That's like robbing yourself of your winnings.

[Xx_tomiblak_xX]

nice dude

[happiness]

Nothing wrong with snapping early if you have a strong start, forces your opponent to either commit or you get instawin and move on.
What's worse imo is people snapping on turn 6 when they're clearly ahead, robbing themselves of 2 cubes they could've gotten if they didn't snap and let the game play out.

[Kayde Bastion]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από no rizz:

Nothing wrong with snapping early if you have a strong start, forces your opponent to either commit or you get instawin and move on.
What's worse imo is people snapping on turn 6 when they're clearly ahead, robbing themselves of 2 cubes they could've gotten if they didn't snap and let the game play out.

Yes, I've been guilty of snapping by turn 6 when I was clearly ahead--but it's not so much about snapping early, snapping early in and of itself is totally fine and is not the problem. The problem is snapping and playing your big counter play early, and making your opponent have to concede early as they can't build on on their game plan anymore. You don't win all the cubes you bet on when you do this, which is why I think everyone should reserve their big counter plays for the final turn.

[Vilidius]

Yeah, I'm sure those players who snap early, force you to retreat, and win quickly must feel really dumb. I'm sure as they climb the rankings they feel even dumber.

So your theory is that the thing you hate, that people are doing, is causing you to lose fewer cubes? Because the obvious result at the end of these matches, where players you hate are snapping early, is that you would lose and they would win? Your theory really is built on the assumption that you just suck at this game, isn't it?

The bottom line is, forcing your opponent into a position where they give you the early and easy win or else risk more and continue from a bad position where they might recover, but probably won't, is an essential part of the game. You seem to hate it, probably because you can't really manage it well. But honestly, there's only one reply when you fail at some part of a game that really is an essential part of it.

Get gud.

[Kayde Bastion]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Vilidius:

The bottom line is, forcing your opponent into a position where they give you the early and easy win or else risk more and continue from a bad position where they might recover, but probably won't, is an essential part of the game. You seem to hate it, probably because you can't really manage it well. But honestly, there's only one reply when you fail at some part of a game that really is an essential part of it.

That only works if you haven't snapped. Yes, sometimes the best strategy is to have your opponent concede early so they stand no chance of turning the tide by turn 6, but that strategy really only makes sense if you haven't snapped and bet on 4-8 cubes. How do you think you're gonna win the bet if you force your opponent to retreat that early?
So, yeah they should feel dumb for making their opponents retreat early after they just snapped 'cause now they've basically robbed themselves of half the bet. That's what we call a rip-off.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Vilidius:

So your theory is that the thing you hate, that people are doing, is causing you to lose fewer cubes? Because the obvious result at the end of these matches, where players you hate are snapping early, is that you would lose and they would win? Your theory really is built on the assumption that you just suck at this game, isn't it?

No, the thing I hate is what 'causing people to win fewer cubes. For real, apply this logic anywhere else in the world. Like, say you bet $20.00 on the Yankees beating the Red Sox, and your friend's like "alright, you're on!" But just as your team is about the win, you're friend goes "uh actually, since it's pretty clear your team's winning, how 'bout we change the channel and I give you half the winnings instead?" Yeah, sounds pretty bloody stupid doesn't it? You'd think your friend was a total douche!

My point is, if you want to snap, you should and if you want to counter you should! It's a card game with a gambling mechanic, of course you should counter your opponent's plays and gamble a little. But don't place a bet, then make your opponent concede so early where you only win half the bet. That's retarded.

[Vilidius]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Kayde Bastion:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Vilidius:

The bottom line is, forcing your opponent into a position where they give you the early and easy win or else risk more and continue from a bad position where they might recover, but probably won't, is an essential part of the game. You seem to hate it, probably because you can't really manage it well. But honestly, there's only one reply when you fail at some part of a game that really is an essential part of it.

That only works if you haven't snapped. Yes, sometimes the best strategy is to have your opponent concede early so they stand no chance of turning the tide by turn 6, but that strategy really only makes sense if you haven't snapped and bet on 4-8 cubes. How do you think you're gonna win the bet if you force your opponent to retreat that early?
So, yeah they should feel dumb for making their opponents to retreat early after they just snapped 'cause now they've basically robbed themselves of half the bet. That's what we call a rip-off.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Vilidius:

So your theory is that the thing you hate, that people are doing, is causing you to lose fewer cubes? Because the obvious result at the end of these matches, where players you hate are snapping early, is that you would lose and they would win? Your theory really is built on the assumption that you just suck at this game, isn't it?

No, the thing I hate is what 'causing people to win fewer cubes. For real, apply this logic anywhere else in the world. Like, say you bet $20.00 on the Yankees beating the Red Sox, and your friend's like "alright, you're on!" But just as your team is about the win, you're friend goes "uh actually, since it's pretty clear your team's winning, how 'bout we change the channel and I give you half the winnings instead?" Yeah, sounds pretty bloody stupid doesn't it?

My point is, if you want to snap, you should and if you want to counter you should! It's a card game with a gambling mechanic, of course you should counter your opponent's plays and gamble a little. But don't place a bet, then make your opponent concede so early where you only win half the bet. That's retarded.

This is genuinely the first time in a long while I can remember someone complaining that players who are obviously worse than they are at the game are somehow ruining it for them. I'm still confused at why you would be bothered by players you are clearly beating at Snap, by any available standard. Because of course you're playing better than them, right? You're winning more cubes when you win, losing less when you lose, and shooting up the rankings? I'm still confused why you're so bothered by the scrubs you are leaving in your trail of success.

Unless, you know, that isn't happening. For some reason.

[Killerbee]

Everybody has different game tactics or play styles. Just deal with it.

[Demiurge]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από no rizz:

Nothing wrong with snapping early if you have a strong start, forces your opponent to either commit or you get instawin and move on.
What's worse imo is people snapping on turn 6 when they're clearly ahead, robbing themselves of 2 cubes they could've gotten if they didn't snap and let the game play out.

lol yea the people snapping at the last turn are so dumb. Then they probably rage and seethe when you retreat because they so obviously telegraphed their win and you didn't give them their cubes. It's too funny. Believe it or not, there's a thread by some guy raging about this very thing and wants retreating taken out of the game lmao.

[Vilidius]

I snap often and aggressively. Ideally I've snapped before it's clear I'm winning. If I haven't, I'll still snap when it's clear I'm winning because someone who's going to retreat to save cubes probably should retreat anyway. If they're not going to, I'll try to get more from them rather than less. I guarantee I've never been remotely bothered by anyone retreating under any circumstances. Thanks for the cubes, on to next hand.

There are a lot of things to argue about regarding this game. Balance issues, etc. But the snap/retreat mechanic is brilliant. As others have described, they took a problem that other games have repeatedly failed to really account for - which is either players rage-quitting or being forced to play out games from hopelessly far behind - and turned it into a feature. Whatever else happens to Snap, when a solution like this finds its way into gaming, it gets copied. Expect to see some version of this in other new releases in the future.

[Z]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Kayde Bastion:

Point, Gilmore, but I do believe I've made solid a point myself: If you're gonna snap and bet on 4-8 cubes and you actually wanna win, don't force your opponent to concede early and you only win half the cubes. That's like robbing yourself of your winnings.

Maybe I'm just bluffing towards you?

[Vilidius]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Z:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Kayde Bastion:

Point, Gilmore, but I do believe I've made solid a point myself: If you're gonna snap and bet on 4-8 cubes and you actually wanna win, don't force your opponent to concede early and you only win half the cubes. That's like robbing yourself of your winnings.

Maybe I'm just bluffing towards you?

It's possible to bluff, and I suspect it will become more common at high-ranked play, especially when there's some incentive to care what happens past infinite rank. You really need to know the game and your situation, however. IF you manage to play Wong and Black Panther on the 4/5 to an otherwise empty lane, and if I don't have an available counter, and you snap at the start of turn 6...I'm probably going to believe you have Zola ready to play. At that point, it doesn't really matter if you do. I'm going to fold. Although there's a decent chance I'd fold anyway, because that's telegraphed as heck.

My point is, you can bluff people into folding. But it has to be accompanied by board position that sells it. It will never work (or at least, should never work) based on "I seem to be losing and it's hard to see what I'm doing but trust me, something awesome is coming." That's not a position to bluff from.

[Lady MacBeth]

The problem with bluffing in this game is its like low stakes poker. No one bluffs hardly in that cause since the stakes are so low you are very likely to get called. Also for a bluff to be successful an opponent needs to know the things that might beat them. And that requires knowledge of archetypes your opponent may, or may not have.

[Vilidius]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ming:

The problem with bluffing in this game is its like low stakes poker. No one bluffs hardly in that cause since the stakes are so low you are very likely to get called. Also for a bluff to be successful an opponent needs to know the things that might beat them. And that requires knowledge of archetypes your opponent may, or may not have.

Fully agree, but that's why I think it will only have a place, if at all, in high end play. At that point players really can be assumed to know the game fully, and to anticipate how your deck is built. I can't imagine it would ever work based on "you should assume I have this card in my hand there's no reason I would put in my deck." But it could at least work as "♥♥♥♥, I didn't draw my turn 6 card, but my deck is pretty obvious at this point and maybe I can convince my opponent I have it."

It's limited, but I still think it has or will have a role.