Most players with a high ELO are the laziest and worst out there.

[Taximaster]

As already discussed, the argument that top players who emply a 'blocking' strategy are lazy is completely baseless. To put that into more perspective, let me help you.
You play your ideal game where you get dealt decent tickets at the start, build them, pick up more tickets, complete them, and end the game with 3-4 16+ point tickets and about 5 shorter ones. Althogether you have about 100 points in tickets, along with whatever points you got while building your routes, which means you probably have a score in the 160-170 range. At the same time, your opponent has gotten 2 short tickets that are worth about 15 points, and even if they got 90+ points off routes, their final score will be about 100-110. So if your opponent wants to win, how are they supposed to do it? They can't draw tickets because you have already taken the best ones, and they can't sit there and hope you miraculously run out of trains, or something like that. The only way to for them to win is to stop you from earning a whole lot of points. Remember, the idea of the game is to score more points than your opponent, and a good way to do that is claiming lots of long routes, blocking opponents critical routes and ending the game quickly. Admittedly I used to play just like you, and very quickly after Ticket to Ride came out on BGA I figured out that in order to get better I had to start using the build long routes end game quickly strategy.
As for the lazy part of it, I would totally disagree because the strategy is not lazy, it is a legitimate strategy in the same way taking lots of tickets and building them is. The difference? Players who play by getting lots of tickets are rated 100-200, players who block, claim heaps of six routes and end the game quickly are 600+. As someone who employs both strategies, I am mid 400, however its is very clear to see that playing the game to score 100 points mostly from routes is better than aiming to complete a whole lot of tickets and scoring 150 points. People who block and score low are not lazy- rather it introduces more planning into the game, makes it more tense and interesting, and if you win one of those games, you feel a lot better than if you win a game where you scored heaps from tickets and your opponent basically had no chance because of their luck.
(PS- I know this post is long and probabbly makes no sense, but it basically says that people who play the game like you describe are not lazy.)

[ExaltedAngel]

As already discussed, the argument that top players who emply a 'blocking' strategy are lazy is completely baseless. To put that into more perspective, let me help you.
You play your ideal game where you get dealt decent tickets at the start, build them, pick up more tickets, complete them, and end the game with 3-4 16+ point tickets and about 5 shorter ones. Althogether you have about 100 points in tickets, along with whatever points you got while building your routes, which means you probably have a score in the 160-170 range. At the same time, your opponent has gotten 2 short tickets that are worth about 15 points, and even if they got 90+ points off routes, their final score will be about 100-110. So if your opponent wants to win, how are they supposed to do it? They can't draw tickets because you have already taken the best ones, and they can't sit there and hope you miraculously run out of trains, or something like that. The only way to for them to win is to stop you from earning a whole lot of points. Remember, the idea of the game is to score more points than your opponent, and a good way to do that is claiming lots of long routes, blocking opponents critical routes and ending the game quickly. Admittedly I used to play just like you, and very quickly after Ticket to Ride came out on BGA I figured out that in order to get better I had to start using the build long routes end game quickly strategy.
As for the lazy part of it, I would totally disagree because the strategy is not lazy, it is a legitimate strategy in the same way taking lots of tickets and building them is. The difference? Players who play by getting lots of tickets are rated 100-200, players who block, claim heaps of six routes and end the game quickly are 600+. As someone who employs both strategies, I am mid 400, however its is very clear to see that playing the game to score 100 points mostly from routes is better than aiming to complete a whole lot of tickets and scoring 150 points. People who block and score low are not lazy- rather it introduces more planning into the game, makes it more tense and interesting, and if you win one of those games, you feel a lot better than if you win a game where you scored heaps from tickets and your opponent basically had no chance because of their luck.
(PS- I know this post is long and probabbly makes no sense, but it basically says that people who play the game like you describe are not lazy.)

I fear you might just have wasted your time. Some people simply don't want to understand and will just read the first row, realize you aren't agreeing with them and skip the rest, remaining adamant in their certainties. This is pretty obvious, otherwise they would have probably already figured it out on their own, just like you did as soon as you started to face different strategies.
Anyway thanks for trying, the explanation is good and I hope will help someone having a better understanding of the game

[Jellby]

Their basic argument is that if you block, they don't enjoy the game, and since playing is about enjoying you should be banned.

[Kaladry]

don’t like to be insulted or think they are wrong.

So just like you?

Ooooh who is the one who took insult here? You it seems. Burn.

[Fletcheese]

As already discussed, the argument that top players who emply a 'blocking' strategy are lazy is completely baseless. To put that into more perspective, let me help you.
You play your ideal game where you get dealt decent tickets at the start, build them, pick up more tickets, complete them, and end the game with 3-4 16+ point tickets and about 5 shorter ones. Althogether you have about 100 points in tickets, along with whatever points you got while building your routes, which means you probably have a score in the 160-170 range. At the same time, your opponent has gotten 2 short tickets that are worth about 15 points, and even if they got 90+ points off routes, their final score will be about 100-110. So if your opponent wants to win, how are they supposed to do it? They can't draw tickets because you have already taken the best ones, and they can't sit there and hope you miraculously run out of trains, or something like that. The only way to for them to win is to stop you from earning a whole lot of points. Remember, the idea of the game is to score more points than your opponent, and a good way to do that is claiming lots of long routes, blocking opponents critical routes and ending the game quickly. Admittedly I used to play just like you, and very quickly after Ticket to Ride came out on BGA I figured out that in order to get better I had to start using the build long routes end game quickly strategy.
As for the lazy part of it, I would totally disagree because the strategy is not lazy, it is a legitimate strategy in the same way taking lots of tickets and building them is. The difference? Players who play by getting lots of tickets are rated 100-200, players who block, claim heaps of six routes and end the game quickly are 600+. As someone who employs both strategies, I am mid 400, however its is very clear to see that playing the game to score 100 points mostly from routes is better than aiming to complete a whole lot of tickets and scoring 150 points. People who block and score low are not lazy- rather it introduces more planning into the game, makes it more tense and interesting, and if you win one of those games, you feel a lot better than if you win a game where you scored heaps from tickets and your opponent basically had no chance because of their luck.
(PS- I know this post is long and probabbly makes no sense, but it basically says that people who play the game like you describe are not lazy.)

I fear you might just have wasted your time. Some people simply don't want to understand and will just read the first row, realize you aren't agreeing with them and skip the rest, remaining adamant in their certainties. This is pretty obvious, otherwise they would have probably already figured it out on their own, just like you did as soon as you started to face different strategies.
Anyway thanks for trying, the explanation is good and I hope will help someone having a better understanding of the game

The whole point of even engaging with this post is to hope that someone sees the light. Playing to win is a game in and of itself. There are no "cheap tactics" or "lazy strategies". There are only decisions that help maximize your likelihood to win and suboptimal decisions that do not.

[Kaladry]

I like how the players here who play this way immediately took offense and started trying to defend their strategy while simultaneously insulting anyone who disagrees.

“But daddy, some kid insulted me on the internet so I had to insult them back!”

[Fletcheese]

I like how the players here who play this way immediately took offense and started trying to defend their strategy while simultaneously insulting anyone who disagrees.

“But daddy, some kid insulted me on the internet so I had to insult them back!”

Can you quote a specific insult? Seems like most of the responses here are pretty well-thought out and actually engaging with the OP's gripe

[mrTake]

Not much sense I see in the change Arena going from 4 to 2 players, I hope for a change back.

[ExaltedAngel]

don’t like to be insulted or think they are wrong.

So just like you?

Ooooh who is the one who took insult here? You it seems. Burn.

Wat, do you realize you are just ranting randomly thinking you are smart and winning arguments while actually you are not winning anything and just look like a troll? Who even insulted anyone here? Based on what you say you seem totally dissociated from reality, nobody insulted anyone, the whole topic (and all the others like this) is just you and other people who agree with you trying to bully good players for beating you by the rules. It might not be fun for you, nothing wrong with that, but the solution is not ranting about it on the forum, just change game (it clearly doesn't fit your tastes, try some cooperative or zero interaction games) and/or play only with other players who agree to your house rules instead. How to do so? Create a group for people agreeing with you. The "Hanabi NO abandon players" group is a good example of this. It is made by players fed up with Elo being totally insignificant in the current state of coop games rating and willing to play with others who agree. It doesn't concern an actual game house rule, just a "rating house rule" differing from the actual rules of BGA, but the concept is the same.

[Scaramantha]

I have gotten close to 400 without excessive blocking. Don't play arena, tournaments are all about points. Play regular 2-player, and whenever you encounter someone you don't enjoy playing with give them a "thumbs down" to say you prefer not to play with them. I was surprised both by how quickly I stopped getting blockers and how many top players there are who play a really fun game!