Regarding the notation of anti-playing situation

[mrDavidH]

This tactic ruins the fun of the game, I don't understand why some are defending this way of playing. We play games to enjoy it, this is my favourite game but the few that like this tactic take anyway any enjoyment of it. Doesn't matter if I win or lose. Something more is needed to stop this happening

[TheLexophile]

This tactic ruins the fun of the game, I don't understand why some are defending this way of playing. We play games to enjoy it, this is my favourite game but the few that like this tactic take anyway any enjoyment of it. Doesn't matter if I win or lose. Something more is needed to stop this happening

The ability to gain all gems needed to build cards from (including pearls) is the point of the game. Keeping gems of any color until one has enough to build a card is a feature of this game, not a bug. Honestly, I don't understand the upset? Most cards that score enough to win a game need 6 or more gems and can rarely be built by gold and pearls alone. It often takes more than a few turns to collect the gems needed - why not collect the scarcest first? If I need blue and there's only two blue on the board, I'm going to grab that. Pearls are no different. It's built in that a player has to discard if they have more than 10 gems so the situation has to self correct at some point. Eventually a player will pay for a card and need to spend the gold or pearls. At that point their opponent can just refresh the board and take the gems they need. There's also cards and a royal with steal capabilities to counter a hoarding situation. I don't see how any of this makes the game less enjoyable? It's part of the strategy of the game. The tension of getting what you need is what makes it fun.

[linda811]

You'll be ask to buy a card on the third consecutive turn you retain all gold and pearls.
If you don't, your opponent then has the opportunity to win instantly.

Sorry to ask this, but why does it be the 3rd turn? Can we make them lose 1 turn?
This strategy is still too dominant even after the anti-play rule was out. I am still a rookie but while I studied the top players, this anti-play strategy is still being used more than often.
I understand resource control is key to Splendor and so does Splendor duel, I love Splendor a lot, but Splendor duel makes it to a different level with the scarcity of pearl.
Consider a lesser anti-play of hoarding all, where they hoard 2 pearls, 2 gold, leave other guy a gold to hold and play in and out, that is inefficient enough to makes the other guy lose for sure.
And the hoarding strategy is so dominant that there's so counter strategy. In Splendor for 2 people, there are multiple counter tactics when our opponent play hoarding.
So my suggestion is to make anti-play style lose at 1 turn.
Thank you.

So you need to use pearls and golds carefully and also pay close attention to 43 to steal pearls from the other player. If you always let pearls out by buying inefficient cards like 2211, 241, 41 black and white, then it makes no sense to say that the other player block all the golds and pearls. It is you who do not want them!

Furthermore, the game designs plenty of ways to prevent these blocking situations. Why not just reserve a 43 theft earlier? Why not first get to 3 crowns to steal a pearl? As a result, it is very difficult for two skilled players to be in these situations. You can learn to not be controlled instead of saying that it is an anti-play behavior. Why not think of your own move of spending pearls and golds, are they efficient enough?

[panyoy]

You'll be ask to buy a card on the third consecutive turn you retain all gold and pearls.
If you don't, your opponent then has the opportunity to win instantly.

Sorry to ask this, but why does it be the 3rd turn? Can we make them lose 1 turn?
This strategy is still too dominant even after the anti-play rule was out. I am still a rookie but while I studied the top players, this anti-play strategy is still being used more than often.
I understand resource control is key to Splendor and so does Splendor duel, I love Splendor a lot, but Splendor duel makes it to a different level with the scarcity of pearl.
Consider a lesser anti-play of hoarding all, where they hoard 2 pearls, 2 gold, leave other guy a gold to hold and play in and out, that is inefficient enough to makes the other guy lose for sure.
And the hoarding strategy is so dominant that there's so counter strategy. In Splendor for 2 people, there are multiple counter tactics when our opponent play hoarding.
So my suggestion is to make anti-play style lose at 1 turn.
Thank you.

So you need to use pearls and golds carefully and also pay close attention to 43 to steal pearls from the other player. If you always let pearls out by buying inefficient cards like 2211, 241, 41 black and white, then it makes no sense to say that the other player block all the golds and pearls. It is you who do not want them!

Furthermore, the game designs plenty of ways to prevent these blocking situations. Why not just reserve a 43 theft earlier? Why not first get to 3 crowns to steal a pearl? As a result, it is very difficult for two skilled players to be in these situations. You can learn to not be controlled instead of saying that it is an anti-play behavior. Why not think of your own move of spending pearls and golds, are they efficient enough?

Agreed
I honestly feel like penalizing players with an instant loss for doing that might be a bit too much, and it kind of goes against the core flow of the game as I see it.
I think the original game mechanics are already balanced enough.
In the physical board game, blocking is a totally normal, tactical move. It's about outsmarting your opponent. Removing that feels like it takes away some of the game's depth.The 10-token limit already balances things: Players can't end their turn with more than 10 tokens anyway, which naturally limits how much people can hoard.You lose a turn by hoarding: The trade-off for hoarding is huge...you skip a chance to buy a card and build your engine. That already puts you at a disadvantage, and the other player can force a board replenish anyway.

I think players should be able to figure out how to deal with tough blocking situations themselves, using the existing rules, instead of us needing this instant-loss penalty.