Why do people think carcassonne is a "friendly" game?

[LillaJag]

Has played a lotta of carcassonne and been called a lot of diffrent names. Last it was "machine" and "algorithm" all because of the fact that I play strategically. I think many people think carcassonne is a "friendly" game but I think it is a quite a aggressive game. You need to block, invade other people and mess with them to earn a lot of point. Specially then you play with the inns and cathedrals expansion. You can't let no-one get a big city with the cathedral, you need to invade or block and make them lose that city otherwise you lose big time..

And I don't do it if it's not gain me. I'm not kingmaking, im playing the game. If I can gain more, i play there. If they gain more than I going to gain I block, I invade or mess with them..

So why do people think that you are a horrible person, a machine, a stupid person or something like tjat when you play aggressive? Can they really not see how important blocking etc really is..?

I should clarify that I only playing 2 player games and there you may need to be more aggressive than other games. I don't know.

[Earthboundia]

As someone who usually plays 3+ people I see Carcassonne as quite a cut throat game compared to others at that player count. That being said most 2 player competitive games have to play like that otherwise it just doesn't work.

[Meeplelowda]

You need to block, invade other people and mess with them to earn a lot of point.

No, you don't need to play it this way. You just can't imagine how someone can have fun not playing this way, i.e., trying to maximize their score relative to their opponent even if it means scoring fewer (or zero) points on their move to prevent the opponent from scoring even more.

There are other people who can't imagine how you're having fun blocking them instead of building your own structures. And believe me, they think you are just as wrong as you think they are wrong (just search the Carcassonne and Ticket to Ride forums for the word "blocking"). They want to play in their own little sandbox, even in games with a shared board. They have no interest in ever playing the game with aggressive strategies that would be used in tournaments, for example.

Neither view is right or wrong. And no, saying the rules allow it so you're right does not resolve the issue. Because this is a debate about what the "spirit" of the game is, not the rules.

But these two types of people should never play with each other or one or both types will have a bad experience. Unfortunately, there is no setting for filtering these player types so that they don't butt heads. So the cumbersome solution is having a stable of like-minded friends to draw from and only playing with them. I don't play in the Carcassonne Arena, so maybe people cry about it less there, but knowing human beings, it probably happens there, too.

[Ceaseless]

Has played a lotta of carcassonne and been called a lot of diffrent names. Last it was "machine" and "algorithm" all because of the fact that I play strategically.
So why do people think that you are a horrible person, a machine, a stupid person or something like tjat when you play aggressive?

Because they're toxic. Some people are just messed up. Each player can decide for themselves how important things like blocking are, and it will determine how well they play the game. Regardless of their skill level, it's still possible to enjoy the game. These people are generally awful at both playing and ever enjoying the game.

[Meeplelowda]

Has played a lotta of carcassonne and been called a lot of diffrent names. Last it was "machine" and "algorithm" all because of the fact that I play strategically.
So why do people think that you are a horrible person, a machine, a stupid person or something like tjat when you play aggressive?

Because they're toxic. Some people are just messed up. Each player can decide for themselves how important things like blocking are, and it will determine how well they play the game. Regardless of their skill level, it's still possible to enjoy the game. These people are generally awful at both playing and ever enjoying the game.

For the people losing their minds and name calling, I agree. But it's possible to understand their underlying point of view, regardless of whether you and I agree with it. Some of them just have an immature way of expressing it. I wouldn't want to sink to their level and paint everyone with the same brush.

[ufm]

You need to block, invade other people and mess with them to earn a lot of point.

No, you don't need to play it this way.

You totally missed 'to earn a lot of point'.

By default, random matches against strangers on BGA are competitive games.
When did you read BGA welcome page for visitors the last time? It says:

More than X million opponents to challenge on Y famous board games.

If you don't like competition, play with your own group, try friendly mode, or do whatever you need to find someone who would accept playing so.
However, please don't frame others.

[Meeplelowda]

You need to block, invade other people and mess with them to earn a lot of point.

No, you don't need to play it this way.

You totally missed 'to earn a lot of point'.

I didn't miss it. I was highlighting precisely that while we (I'm assuming) think that "earn[ing] a lot of point[s]" is what it's all about, others think that you shouldn't if you have to use these methods which they consider "wrong," or "dirty," or similar. Obviously, you don't have to play with the goal of maximizing points at all costs in mind, and they think you shouldn't. There is another way to play: hamstring yourself by not using all moves available to you. It is pretty clear what my opinion of that mentality is, but I won't go so far as saying it's an illegitimate position to hold if it makes the game unfun for you. If I believe they can't dictate what constitutes fun for me, I can't dictate it for them.

[ufm]

No, you don't need to play it this way.

You totally missed 'to earn a lot of point'.

I didn't miss it.

Speaking again: By default, random matches against strangers on BGA are competitive games.
If someone thinks players should hamstring themselves just because they don't like a certain strategy in competitive games, that's simply their fault.

[Meeplelowda]

Speaking again: By default, random matches against strangers on BGA are competitive games.

Here's where the problem lies. I'm guessing there are people who are anti-blocking, etc., who firmly believe that they are playing "competitively" simply because their score is being compared to someone else's. Speaking from their perspective, they would say you are trying to dictate what being competitive is. They don't, and perhaps can't, see it from your perspective. All you have to do is read those threads to see they live in a parallel reality they think is equally valid.

It's easy to say "well, they're just wrong," but I'm trying to be humble and have a little empathy. And this is coming from someone who would get moderated if he expressed precisely what he thought in the language that's in his head.

[ufm]

Speaking again: By default, random matches against strangers on BGA are competitive games.

Here's where the problem lies. I'm guessing there are people who are anti-blocking, etc., who firmly believe that they are playing "competitively" simply because their score is being compared to someone else's. Speaking from their perspective, they would say you are trying to dictate what being competitive is. They don't, and perhaps can't, see it from your perspective. All you have to do is read those threads to see they live in a parallel reality they think is equally valid.

It's easy to say "well, they're just wrong," but I'm trying to be humble and have a little empathy. And this is coming from someone who would get moderated if he expressed precisely what he thought in the language that's in his head.

If they truly think so, they should contact the designer and persuade that the strategy they don't like is against the game's spirit or something.
Blocking players are playing in the boundary of rules, and blaming a valid strategy is nothing but an approach assured to fail.
For the recent example on BGA, look at Obsession: It really happened and the designer acted.