Can we Have Option for Block/No Blocking Games for People Who Hate SABOTAGE Players?

[ExaltedAngel]

I wonder if the game designer has said anything about the issue. That'd settle it for sure. Does anyone know?

It's not an issue to anyone except the whiners. The game designer is ok with blocking being a part of the game, it's stated on the message right above yours. And no, apparently it doesn't settle anything, whiners gonna keep whining.

[Falzano]

If that was a "mike drop" post that can "close an infinite discussion" then this thread would have ended three years and a dozen pages ago, when I first posted the link to that video.

Instead we appear to be fated to having people necro this 40-month-old post forever, as people keep reposting points already made years ago

Oh...
I admit: I didn't read the thread from the start.
Well, I think reposting that video from now on, everytime someone will resume this post, will solve every doubt.

Edit: I *hope* reposting...

[Emerson_Matt]

I wonder if the game designer has said anything about the issue. That'd settle it for sure. Does anyone know?

It's not an issue to anyone except the whiners. The game designer is ok with blocking being a part of the game, it's stated on the message right above yours. And no, apparently it doesn't settle anything, whiners gonna keep whining.

So you're saying the designer /has/ said something. Wow, who knew? I wonder if he was for or against allowing blocking. I guess we'll never know.

[GuntherB]

But what does the designer say about that?

[Wistama]

I block when I think it's my best move, and I don't complain when an opponent blocks me. The anti-blockers are wrong to frame this as nefarious play or bad sportsmanship or other such derogatory terms.

Nevertheless, even though I agree with the designer, I don't think his opinion settles it. The sensible version of the anti-block position is that they'd simply have more fun playing a game with no blocking. That's not the game that Alan R. Moon designed, but there are a lot of good games he hasn't designed.

The ideal would be to have an optional rule against blocking. Then the anti-blockers could play their preferred game, just as people who like Switzerland can play their preferred game, etc. The problem is that there's no way to write such a rule. (At least, I can't see one, and in all this long thread no one has proposed a workable one.)

Anti-blockers: You can move toward the game you want to play by red-thumbing blockers. Admittedly, your progress will be slow. Just face the fact that complaining in this thread doesn't produce slow progress, it produces zero progress.

[Yodawati]

It's 2026 now, any follow up on this?? It is annoying but at the same time I laugh at these blockers because they can't win by playing smart and decent. I would love to stick around in the Arena but I found that once I get to Platinum the players are passionate blockers. I am very sceptical that anyone with a score above 300 are blockers. And that takes the fun out of this game, sadly

[Ceaseless]

It's 2026 now, any follow up on this?? It is annoying but at the same time I laugh at these blockers because they can't win by playing smart and decent. I would love to stick around in the Arena but I found that once I get to Platinum the players are passionate blockers. I am very sceptical that anyone with a score above 300 are blockers. And that takes the fun out of this game, sadly

Update? It's been pretty clear in these threads players trying to prevent blocking in rated are just pathetic cheaters. They can't play smart or decent, regardless of the outcome, so they resort to cheap nonsense like trying to lie about the game's rules.

You do raise a nice point that these anti-blocking cheaters largely reside below 300 rating, so if you ban players below 300 rating from your table you can permanently ban the majority of them from your games. Sure, some may try other underhanded methods to artificially boost their rating, so you won't keep them all out, in some cases they'll even do it legitimately, though most don't bother thinking enough to sort out why that's possible, but it's a still a decent filter to greatly reduce nasty opponents and improve game quality. I commonly use it for this exact reason.

Unfortunately for players below 300, BGA rating filters only work as a range from a player's rating, so they can't weed out such cheaters so easily, and have to resort to manually red thumbing nasty users one at a time. What also sucks is that many anti-blockers predatorily target beginners, perhaps as one of the few demographics they actually have a chance against, though anti-blockers tend to be so bad at the game a beginner may very well end up outplaying them anyways, or will before long.

But that a beginner has a real chance at outplaying anti-blockers isn't the point. A player shouldn't have to reach 300 rating just to have access to a system that bans the worst of the community from their games. The majority of players below 300 are decent people, and if they don't feel like going past 300, they shouldn't have to feel the need to just for a filter against cheaters.

[Archisian]

Blocking is literally part of the game's design. The fact that once routes are taken, it inherently takes an optimal route away from the opponent.

One could make the argument that ANY taking of routes could be considered "blocking" if you are trying to build routes with similar destinations or paths.

Yeah, it suck when people take Houston------New Orleans, Seattle------Vancouver, Nashville------Atlanta and other popular routes before you do. Just get them first or plan around those choke points. Usually someone who commits to only blocking you on your optimal route the entire game is going to lose anyway. Take the dub and move on.

[Steeldemon]

People who intentionally block on purpose are cowards.

[menettm]

No, they are only realist.
To not loose, block is one solution.