Board Game Arena

cosdogg wrote: ↑21 February 2026, 17:40 it's a competition game with a score, so how would competing for routes be a bad thing? to me that is what makes it great. 2 player original almost always comes down to who had the best initial draw; 4 player expansion usually comes down to who can be the most efficient.

Except they're not all having to compete for routes. Multiple players can be playing at a handicap while someone else just breezes over their routes, not because of any real decisions on anyone's part, but the way the cards lined up. If there's two players, an overlap in routes means they both have to fight for them, and there won't be any surprise shots outline of the standard 1 turn for each player, so you don't have to worry about both of your intended locations getting taken out at once.

Having the best initial draw isn't going to guarantee you anything. Skill can overcome having a weaker start plenty of times. If I get paired against a 300, even if they have a better hand than me, they'll still probably lose, because a 300 only has a relatively basic understanding of what to do with their cards, and will leave plenty of room for me to outplay them. That's why players can reach ratings several hundred points higher than 300, because there is such room for skill to factor into the game, at least in 2-player. A game determined just by the initial draw wouldn't have that sort of capacity.

Can you give me an example of this 'skill' you mention? I draw LA NY and LA Chi and you draw tor-mia, winnipeg houston

cosdogg wrote: ↑15 July 2026, 20:41 Can you give me an example of this 'skill' you mention? I draw LA NY and LA Chi and you draw tor-mia, winnipeg houston

They's still going to have to play the game out and make their choices. You failed to even mention third tickets that could affect chances, the fight for the middle of the board can still happen, as well as sheer efficiency selection is how quickly and effectively you complete your routes. That's why someone still learning the basics of the game at 300 rating loses to 600s over 80% of the time. The skill gap just offers that good of odds, if luck truly dominated to the degree you claimed players would regularly be going 50/50 and as a result players aren't going to be able to climb to 600. But yet Ticket to Ride has plenty of 600s and higher. That's because over the course of the various ticket pairings and card draws they get, they can make better decisions that gives them noticeably better results.

Unlike in 4 player, your routes won't all randomly be blocked up for no reason with nothing you can do about it one game while the next game it's a different random player that might get buried. It's not even that they're trying to team up on you, though it's a possibility, you're just simply placed in the wrong spot at the wrong time. 2 player only has one opponent that can only take one route at a time before your next move. If you're both in each other's way then you'll both have to deal with it, as opposed to in 3-4 player where one player may be completely unaffected as everyone else got routes clashing with each other, allowing the unimpeded player to coast for a free win.

This is actually interesting, I joined several Ticket to Ride tournaments from local tournament and wsbg asia, all of them are 4/5 players competition. It’s really different to play from 2 players to 4/5 players cause you can’t just use longest route or play all 6 routes in 4/5 players since either one of them looking for that routes.

I agree that it has some luck factor in 4/5 players, but adapting the gameplay is most important in 4/5 players and it can be played competitively.

Hopefully arena settings can be implemented as tournament settings in real life as we can practice to play the tournaments.

cosdogg wrote: ↑15 July 2026, 20:41 Can you give me an example of this 'skill' you mention? I draw LA NY and LA Chi and you draw tor-mia, winnipeg houston

You cannot win them all, but LA NY is not that good