Community consensus / unwritten rules about blocking?

[Salvidrim]

1) I don't block and would prefer others not to block my routes on purpose (fine when they need the path for themselves).
2) I don't block, but I have no problems with others blocking it to win the game or prevent me from gaining too many points.
3) I don't block, but I don't care when and why others block my routes.
4) I block only when I need the route for points and hope others do this only in such case too.
5) I block and don't mind others blocking for any reason.

6. Play to win with any strategy the rules allow, and don't get annoyed when other players also play to win.

Number 6 I don't like. I don't like players who play to win at all costs. It's suppose to be a fun experience and players like you ruin that for others. Is it that important that you win at the expense of others enjoyment?

I'm so confused, why play games if not to win? If one is not playing to win, then one is not playing the game

[john0607]

6. Play to win with any strategy the rules allow, and don't get annoyed when other players also play to win.

Number 6 I don't like. I don't like players who play to win at all costs. It's suppose to be a fun experience and players like you ruin that for others. Is it that important that you win at the expense of others enjoyment?

I'm so confused, why play games if not to win? If one is not playing to win, then one is not playing the game

You clearly at confused. Of course you try to win but you don't go all out to ruin the enjoyment of the game for everyone else. Winning isn't as important as having fun. And if you don't get that, that is a problem with you.

[Salvidrim]

Number 6 I don't like. I don't like players who play to win at all costs. It's suppose to be a fun experience and players like you ruin that for others. Is it that important that you win at the expense of others enjoyment?

I'm so confused, why play games if not to win? If one is not playing to win, then one is not playing the game

You clearly at confused. Of course you try to win but you don't go all out to ruin the enjoyment of the game for everyone else. Winning isn't as important as having fun. And if you don't get that, that is a problem with you.

Playing against an opponent who doesn't play seriously (what you call "go all out") is insulting and ruins enjoyment of the competitive nature of playing board games. It's not about winning or not, it's about playing seriously and trying to win.

[macpuddock]

I'm so confused, why play games if not to win? If one is not playing to win, then one is not playing the game

You clearly at confused. Of course you try to win but you don't go all out to ruin the enjoyment of the game for everyone else. Winning isn't as important as having fun. And if you don't get that, that is a problem with you.

Playing against an opponent who doesn't play seriously (what you call "go all out") is insulting and ruins enjoyment of the competitive nature of playing board games. It's not about winning or not, it's about playing seriously and trying to win.

Completely agree! Part of the fun is trying to determine the best (winningest) strategy, using all legal options, and then finding out if I was right (did I win). I absolutely will focus first on the routes that I need that are most easily or likely blocked, and I am not annoyed that I have to do that.

[MadManMark]

Completely agree! Part of the fun is trying to determine the best (winningest) strategy, using all legal options, and then finding out if I was right (did I win). I absolutely will focus first on the routes that I need that are most easily or likely blocked, and I am not annoyed that I have to do that.

My go-to comparison for those who disagree is that it's like playing poker and being upset when someone bluffs. Yes, you can play poker without bluffing, but insisting on removing that dimension of play, where you can just stop wondering how your opponent will mess with you, actually makes the game less fun, not more. Such people are literally missing the point of playing games (IMO). More strategy options is a good thing, not a bad thing. And OMG, unlike poker, there isn't even any real-world consequence here! (money at stake) How ironic that the people who say THEY do NOT care that much about winning their games, simultaneously get mad if their opponent does?

[luxorthegamer]

1) I don't block and would prefer others not to block my routes on purpose (fine when they need the path for themselves).
2) I don't block, but I have no problems with others blocking it to win the game or prevent me from gaining too many points.
3) I don't block, but I don't care when and why others block my routes.
4) I block only when I need the route for points and hope others do this only in such case too.
5) I block and don't mind others blocking for any reason.

6. Play to win with any strategy the rules allow, and don't get annoyed when other players also play to win.

I respect those at this 6th level but I am actually the 5th level only. XD

By the way, to all those who get annoyed by blocks, don't let yourself be prone to blocks.

[thg0724]

You clearly at confused. Of course you try to win but you don't go all out to ruin the enjoyment of the game for everyone else. Winning isn't as important as having fun. And if you don't get that, that is a problem with you.

I don't understand how "going all out to win" (within the rules) can be seen as "ruining the enjoyment of the game for everyone else".

[john0607]

Completely agree! Part of the fun is trying to determine the best (winningest) strategy, using all legal options, and then finding out if I was right (did I win). I absolutely will focus first on the routes that I need that are most easily or likely blocked, and I am not annoyed that I have to do that.

My go-to comparison for those who disagree is that it's like playing poker and being upset when someone bluffs. Yes, you can play poker without bluffing, but insisting on removing that dimension of play, where you can just stop wondering how your opponent will mess with you, actually makes the game less fun, not more. Such people are literally missing the point of playing games (IMO). More strategy options is a good thing, not a bad thing. And OMG, unlike poker, there isn't even any real-world consequence here! (money at stake) How ironic that the people who say THEY do NOT care that much about winning their games, simultaneously get mad if their opponent does?

Except Poker is played for money and Ticket to Ride is supposed to be played for fun. Supposed to. So comparison does not hold up

[marknibb]

I think having Arena played as 2 player - makes it hard to avoid blocking. You only play one track and block 2. Very annoying.

[MadManMark]

Completely agree! Part of the fun is trying to determine the best (winningest) strategy, using all legal options, and then finding out if I was right (did I win). I absolutely will focus first on the routes that I need that are most easily or likely blocked, and I am not annoyed that I have to do that.

My go-to comparison for those who disagree is that it's like playing poker and being upset when someone bluffs. Yes, you can play poker without bluffing, but insisting on removing that dimension of play, where you can just stop wondering how your opponent will mess with you, actually makes the game less fun, not more. Such people are literally missing the point of playing games (IMO). More strategy options is a good thing, not a bad thing. And OMG, unlike poker, there isn't even any real-world consequence here! (money at stake) How ironic that the people who say THEY do NOT care that much about winning their games, simultaneously get mad if their opponent does?

Except Poker is played for money and Ticket to Ride is supposed to be played for fun. Supposed to. So comparison does not hold up

Did you even read to the end of my paragraph before replying?