Community consensus / unwritten rules about blocking?

[Tuut Tuut tis Luut]

There's a very simple answer here. Obviously blocking, while potentially frustrating, is objectively fine and allowed. There's really no argument there.

But it's also perfectly understandable to not like that aspect of the game. In that case though, it's your own responsibility to facilitate that.

Simplest way is simply set up your own tablss in training mode (this turns of elo rank changes for that match). And add a description saying it's a casual, friendly match, no intentional blocking. Or something of that sort.

Or, while this takes some time and effort to accomplish, but more fun and reliable in the long run. Find some friends or ikeminded players to play with instead of random tables.
You could even set up a bga group and promote it on the forum.

[Mathew5000]

But I think the real disagreement, which we can't seem to get beyond, is that some players see the game one way, other players see it the other way, and both camps think the other is simply wrong, doesn't understand the game, and is irrational, unreasonable, or unsporting. I think we could benefit from simply acknowledging that those in the other camp simply see it differently and that's perfectly fine, equally valid, and just not a view we happen to share.

As I said before, we can use the "presentation" option to signal to potential players what kind of game we're looking for.

I agree. The analogy is this: suppose you see a few friends playing tennis on public courts, and you ask one of them if you can play. They respond, "sure, but we're playing a friendly game, we keep score but we try to get the longest rallies". So you start playing and you play it like you've always played tennis: you try to aim the ball where your opponent can't get it, so that you win the point. Your opponent tells you, "hey, as I mentioned, we don't play like that here."

Now who is in the wrong here? You might think that's not the "proper" way to play tennis, you might call it unsportsmanlike and so on, while the group who was originally on the courrts might call you unsportsmanlike and malicious. But even though this isn't the typical way to play tennis, there's nothing wrong with it. They are playing tennis as a semi-cooperative game, they told you this clearly before you began to play, so if you want to play with them, good etiquette requires that you don't play supercompetitively like you would in a competitive tournament. But at the same time, it would be improper for the original players there to call you malicious, or to say that your style of play is inferior or selfish or anything like that.

[Ceaseless]

They respond, "sure, but we're playing a friendly game, we keep score but we try to get the longest rallies".

Well that's... a description. If they're trying to keep the longest rallies, what's the keeping score doing? I know you made that one up as a hypothetical, but I often do see players who made these odd modifications not think through some of the implications to lead to some bizarre outcomes. It's fine by me if they're hosting their own unranked room for it at least, then it's just their problem, lol.

[Tuut Tuut tis Luut]

But I think the real disagreement, which we can't seem to get beyond, is that some players see the game one way, other players see it the other way, and both camps think the other is simply wrong, doesn't understand the game, and is irrational, unreasonable, or unsporting. I think we could benefit from simply acknowledging that those in the other camp simply see it differently and that's perfectly fine, equally valid, and just not a view we happen to share.

. The problem is that the disagreement here isn't about the validity of either preference. It's not even necessarily between those two camps.

It's that a vocal subsection of the anti-blocking camp is expecting everyone else to use different rules to accommodate their preference. Some even entirely invalidating any opposing view by framing it as inherently malicious. Completely disregarding the possibility that others genuinely enjoy that aspect of the game for any reason other than to ruin it for others.

Nobody on the pro-blocking side (or close to, as far as I can see) is actually saying it's unreasonable to prefer 'friendly', less-confrontational play. Only that they should be allowed to play how they prefer, and shouldn't be harassed if they do. And plenty, if not most "anti-blocking" players agree that it's a valid and legal strategy, despite personally not liking it.

So while I agree with your general sentiment. It's not quite fair to frame it as an issue of opposing preferences. When only one of the two sides is arguing against everyone being free to play how they want.

[mimispud]

For me, blocking is a legitimate part of game strategy. Every move is essentially a block. If you take Seattle to Helena, I can no longer take Seattle to Helena. You've blocked me, so I have to find a new way round. Is that not literally the game? The intention behind the block shouldn't matter, and we shouldn't be policing when or why someone blocks another player so long as they are keeping to the rules.

That being said, I would agree that blocking as your main strategy is against the spirit of the game. Whilst technically within the rules, if you just spent the entire game impeding others whilst not actually attempting to fulfil your tickets, the mechanics of the game can't really be played the way they should, which ruins the fun pretty quickly.

I see blocking as a tool in my arsenal rather than a full blown strategy. I am always attempting to complete my tickets and build up my points as my priority. But sometimes there are instances where defensive or "sabotaging" tactics may be beneficial, and that includes blocking. For example:

• If I have guessed what ticket you have, I might intentionally take a slightly longer way to block your most obvious/easiest routes

• If you have blocked my route (even unknowingly), I may then block yours to level out the disadvantage

• If you have left yourself vulnerable with a 1 or 2 car route left open, I may sacrifice a turn to block you and force you into a longer route

• If you are racing into the lead, leaving me unable to complete many of my tickets, I may turn my priority to claiming long routes, including blocking

• Sometimes I have taken Nashville - Atlanta or Houston - New Orleans early in the game to block them off for other players and open up easier connections for me in the future

My main issue is - how do you decide what is a block and what is a legitimate move? If I wanted to take a route but you got there first, is that a block or just part of the game? It seems like a block is characterised by someone taking a route when they don't "need" it and gaining an advantage, but you can't really know that at any point.

[sanderson455]

Not sure why all the complaining. I don't like to play with people who block as a strategy as opposed to as a part of their own attempts to complete tracks. When I play with someone who plays this way, I simply mark them as thumbs down "prefer to avoid - personal opinion" or whatever the wording is at the end of the game. Then I don't come across them again. Simple solution.

[moucro]

It might feel weird for some people but I actually like when opponents try to block me!
When the 2 players are doing their stuff each on one side of the board it feels like playing alone, and then you see at the end which one has more points... which I find boring very quickly.

When someone tries to block me, this is when the fun begins! Either I outsmart him/her, finish my routes and I have a high chance of winning, or I can't finish and he/she wins. That is for me the funny part, interaction between the players instead of playing alone.

[IjinNoMigite]

I play to win.
If I only have 2 short routes. Imma gonna block.
If I've got a definite 35 car route. Imma gonna think about blocking you.
If I've got a 40 train route. Imma gonna build as if you might block me.
It never works every time.

[2288sam]

Blocking is risky because if you are wrong about their routes you risk wasting valuable cards and time trying to block them. If you are able to block successfully and still win, all the better to you. If you don't like getting blocked, stop playing trains early in games; instead draw to 40+ train cards. Then, take routes that are shorter first and leaves 5s and 6s last--nearly impossible to successfully block that strategy consistently.

As for me, I play to get more points than my opponents. Each game is different, but that goal can be achieved in a number of ways. Being able to accurately and swiftly adapt in each game and decide which strategy is best is the fun of the game.

[ExaltedAngel]

Blocking is risky because if you are wrong about their routes you risk wasting valuable cards and time trying to block them. If you are able to block successfully and still win, all the better to you. If you don't like getting blocked, stop playing trains early in games; instead draw to 40+ train cards. Then, take routes that are shorter first and leaves 5s and 6s last--nearly impossible to successfully block that strategy consistently.

Actually taking short routes first is wrong in terms of expected winrate, always take long first! But I agree on the rest