Blocking Other Players?

[CaptMalHammer]

Just a question that should make for an interesting discussion. Please keep it polite and civil this is meant for discussion and not bashing or hateful comments.

Question? Is it a good idea to block someone from making a play when there is no benefit for you other then that?

Example: in a game you could make one of two plays. block someone who needs a specific space or resource etc or make a play that will complete or further one of your own objectives.

Will post my thoughts in a bit but wanted to hear the communities thoughts.

thank you,

[NaceWindu]

It depends on the game/situation. If you are doing it just to spite another player or stop them for no real reason, I don't really see the point. If you block them to prevent them from getting something that has a chance to give them an advantage, it might be a smart move.

[Imay]

Hello,
Taking example from Bubblee Pop, blocking someone can be sometimes a better move than poping some bubblees. Because you need to evaluate the next moves.
Blocking without any benefit is a legal move too, but if the block does not give you any advantage, it means that very probably there is a better move available.

[Jest Phulin]

It depends on the situation. (Yeah, don't you hate it when a discussion starts out that way? )

Situation 1. I am losing the game by 20 points. Move 1 will score me 5 points. Move 2 will prevent opponent A from scoring 15 points. Move 3 will prevent opponent B from scoring 15 points. A and B are within 10 points of each other. Taking Move 2 or 3 is pretty much the definition of kingmaking, and is forbidden on this site. The only reason to take either is to give the win to a specific player. Bad idea to take move 2 or 3.

Situation 2. I am ahead by 5 points. Move 1 will gain me 5 points, but allow an opponent to gain 11 points. Move 2 will gain me no points, but will limit an opponent to 4 points. Taking move 2 will gain me a net 7 points and retain the lead, so it is in my benefit to take the move, and is OK. The opponent may not like the move, but from a strictly "how to win the game" view it is a good move.

In most games that I've seen, though, it is a rare circumstance when strictly blocking provides the best long-term benefit. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that it's rare. And, hey, if it is the last turn, you only need a short-term benefit, not a long-term one.

[Liallan]

I would agree with Nane's opinion of this as just a basic answer. Preventing someone else from getting something can definitely be worth something to you. A good player should recognize that stopping your opponent from getting 5 points is the same as you getting 5 points, but if another move gives you 2, you net 3 from blocking. (In 2 player. In multiplayer that gets more complicated.) But I've never seen the point of blocking just for the sake of blocking, or even doing if if your opponent simply cannot win and you don't need to.

But addressing some of what Jest said. I think that Scenario 1 depends on the situation. (So it depends on the situation, which still depends on the situation. ) If that was your last move, or near the end when you can't really do anything else, then I'd agree. But otherwise there could be a point in choosing to hold back Player A or B, and purposely make it one of the two. Which will depend on what those moves are that you can prevent and what else they can do, what the chances are they can do it, and what they may be likely to do on subsequent turns. I always struggle with what to do in multiplayer. If it's a last turn and it just comes down to math, that's a simple decision.

But I also think blocking can be long-term in many cases. Or maybe I've just played too much Carcassonne. (Not here) It can be useful to block something right from the start. (What's even nicer is that you can often block and do something for yourself at the same time.) But there are other games where spending too much time blocking someone else ends up being to the detriment of what you are trying to accomplish. (Simple example - Ticket to Ride.) You do need to consider the long-term benefit or cost of doing so.

You can also complicate this by whether you are just trying to win, if it's your best buddy and the two of you have fun dumping on each other, whether you like to see how high a score you can get (win or lose), etc.

[Romain672]

At Inventors 3 players, what happen is really strange : since you can 'easily' get one reward on each invention, you get some strange choice, like loosing one or two majority for remove one reward from another player. (at 2 players it's the heart of the game, at 4~5 it's not worth it, except in some specific case)

There is near always an utility to block someone else because he will loose some points.

Except when one player know he was loose : he can do whatever he want. I get blocked many times when i have an elo highly superior to others just because they want that the player with highest elo doesn't won. (and it's an human reaction, I did it too with friends)
What I think of it ?... It's really annoying for the player who should won, but I get fun when I did an other player won. It's not fair play, but if I wanted fair play game, I should play at 2 players :/

[Shaq Jenkins]

As others are saying, this depends on the game and the specific scenario.

Honestly, I hate having a high ELO and playing certain games with lower ranked players. They will purposely make moves that screw me over and don't benefit them at all. It's as if they care more about making me lose than they care about trying to win the game for themselves. I see this appalling behavior the most in Legendary Inventors, Colt Express, and Love Letter.