How would you describe playstyles?

[speedypuzzlement]

In chess there are labels like positional vs tactical, aggressive vs solid, etc. Of course TTR is a different game and deserves its own terms. Here are a few I came up with, although (like chess) they vary in effectiveness based on the situation:

- Aggressive vs Defensive: reducing opponent score / LCP (blocking, racing for face-up cards) vs optimizing personal score / LCP.
- Sprinter vs Marathoner: reaching the final round quickly (43 trains with long routes) vs taking bigger tickets and using 36-40 trains total.
- Principled vs Tricky: guaranteeing lower score / LCP vs taking risks for more score / LCP. For example: accepting a 3-route and a 2-route instead of blind drawing for a 4-route or a 5-route.

I would describe myself as somewhat defensive, definitely a sprinter, mostly principled (unless rolling the dice or making things muddy is the only way to win). How do you view yourself / others?

[Cournot]

If you are playing enough tops, you'll end up naming playstyles by players' name; e.g. the Alfred's technique, the ''alfredization of the game''.
Just play him in 4p, you'll understand what I mean He's one of the very best, if you're not prepared accordingly, he'll crush you
But generally, you can catalogue playstyles by its master(s).
Apart from the French top players (Bonjour, je vais prendre une chocolatine s'il vous plaît!), everybody amongst the 500 and above play the same, with little variants that make some players really better; that's what help some players stand out and can remain 700+ for the long run, even with the luck involved in the game.

[Ceaseless]

Apart from the French top players (Bonjour, je vais prendre une chocolatine s'il vous plaît!), everybody amongst the 500 and above play the same, with little variants that make some players really better; that's what help some players stand out and can remain 700+ for the long run, even with the luck involved in the game.

Why the French?

[Cournot]

Apart from the French top players (Bonjour, je vais prendre une chocolatine s'il vous plaît!), everybody amongst the 500 and above play the same, with little variants that make some players really better; that's what help some players stand out and can remain 700+ for the long run, even with the luck involved in the game.

Why the French?

idk ask them
There's clearly a theorical reason, but maybe they played each others a lot and adapted their playstyle.

This reminds me of a class in uni I took where the professor talked about GT and evolutionary biology; a specie can thrive in an ecosystem, but when you introduce a variant of it (eg the same specie but from an other ecosystem or even continent), the specie goes extinct.
Specie A has an edge over B. A wins.
C is introduced. C>A, but C<B.
B is extinct, so C<B doesn't matter and C wins, even tho A and B could have survived together if B was still there.

[speedypuzzlement]

Hmm, fair enough. I am seeing that Alfreddd likes to keep a lot of tickets. Maximizing points per turn with fewer trains / cards rather than triggering the final round or LCP (which I suppose matters less as the player count increases). That being said I do often lose to players who gather 4+ tickets with 40 or fewer trains, so perhaps I need to learn how to better counter.

In terms of variants / tricks, I feel that using the final round to complete a ticket is quite thrilling (for example: Duluth to Houston + Kansas City to Houston ... go through Omaha, get to the final round in 29 turns, and drop a 1-route).

[Cournot]

Hmm, fair enough. I am seeing that Alfreddd likes to keep a lot of tickets. Maximizing points per turn with fewer trains / cards rather than triggering the final round or LCP (which I suppose matters less as the player count increases). That being said I do often lose to players who gather 4+ tickets with 40 or fewer trains, so perhaps I need to learn how to better counter.

In terms of variants / tricks, I feel that using the final round to complete a ticket is quite thrilling (for example: Duluth to Houston + Kansas City to Houston ... go through Omaha, get to the final round in 29 turns, and drop a 1-route).

You cannot do much against tickets fiender... Having a 700+ ELO means that you will lose 5-10% of games, based on luck, for the most part

[speedypuzzlement]

Makes sense. Just had a game where I feel like I polished my tickets to perfection and it's still not enough.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=844033246

I suppose I need more experience blocking the short routes (or simply racing for <30 turns and accepting the point loss). And far more frequently I just blunder a winning position :p.

[ExaltedAngel]

Makes sense. Just had a game where I feel like I polished my tickets to perfection and it's still not enough.

My 2 cents:

I think against that kind of opponent you had to try to interact more and/or go faster. Your route is quite well optimized, but it's still 11 turns (10 claims + 1 overdraw). That's an amount of turns that as you see allows a lucky opponent to easily draw and complete multiple long tickets. In this specific situation, since your tickets are not exactly the best to ditch, you couldn't really go much faster, so once I saw his initial claims I would have played 4 yellow + 1 grey rather than 2+2. In hindsight that would maybe win you the game if you then proceeded to block Atlanta when he drew it, but let's not focus on that: think of it as a move that blocks/slows many tickets along that dorsal that's notoriously the most profitable one if you want to fiend tix. I would probably go 4 yellow after his first few moves even if that makes a bit harder to optimize your route because you are forced to play blue rather than yellow to connect Miami but don't forget that you don't need a full 43+ longest to beat someone who starts with 3+2+3+3

This said, some games you just can't win, it happens

[speedypuzzlement]

My 2 cents:

I think against that kind of opponent you had to try to interact more and/or go faster. Your route is quite well optimized, but it's still 11 turns (10 claims + 1 overdraw). That's an amount of turns that as you see allows a lucky opponent to easily draw and complete multiple long tickets. In this specific situation, since your tickets are not exactly the best to ditch, you couldn't really go much faster, so once I saw his initial claims I would have played 4 yellow + 1 grey rather than 2+2. In hindsight that would maybe win you the game if you then proceeded to block Atlanta when he drew it, but let's not focus on that: think of it as a move that blocks/slows many tickets along that dorsal that's notoriously the most profitable one if you want to fiend tix. I would probably go 4 yellow after his first few moves even if that makes a bit harder to optimize your route because you are forced to play blue rather than yellow to connect Miami but don't forget that you don't need a full 43+ longest to beat someone who starts with 3+2+3+3

This said, some games you just can't win, it happens

Fair enough. In hindsight I should have tossed Boston to Miami and kept the other 2. Only 2 ticket points (12 - 10) feels flimsy but at least I have some chances to end in 29 turns. Going with the ones I kept, I probably left too many future tickets open to my opponent (LA to NY, LA to Miami, SF to Atlanta).

[Ceaseless]

Makes sense. Just had a game where I feel like I polished my tickets to perfection and it's still not enough.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=844033246

I suppose I need more experience blocking the short routes (or simply racing for <30 turns and accepting the point loss). And far more frequently I just blunder a winning position :p.

My 2 cents:

I think against that kind of opponent you had to try to interact more and/or go faster. Your route is quite well optimized, but it's still 11 turns (10 claims + 1 overdraw). That's an amount of turns that as you see allows a lucky opponent to easily draw and complete multiple long tickets. In this specific situation, since your tickets are not exactly the best to ditch, you couldn't really go much faster, so once I saw his initial claims I would have played 4 yellow + 1 grey rather than 2+2. In hindsight that would maybe win you the game if you then proceeded to block Atlanta when he drew it, but let's not focus on that: think of it as a move that blocks/slows many tickets along that dorsal that's notoriously the most profitable one if you want to fiend tix. I would probably go 4 yellow after his first few moves even if that makes a bit harder to optimize your route because you are forced to play blue rather than yellow to connect Miami but don't forget that you don't need a full 43+ longest to beat someone who starts with 3+2+3+3

This said, some games you just can't win, it happens

Fair enough. In hindsight I should have tossed Boston to Miami and kept the other 2. Only 2 ticket points (12 - 10) feels flimsy but at least I have some chances to end in 29 turns. Going with the ones I kept, I probably left too many future tickets open to my opponent (LA to NY, LA to Miami, SF to Atlanta).

I'm not sure what you mean by 2 ticket points, why are you subtracting? I was surprised to see you pick the Boston Ticket over the Winipeg Ticket. You basically exchange the Houston-New Orleans for Montreal-Boston, though there is a commitment extension, but mostly for things you're already aiming for like the 6 red, 5 black, and 6 colorless, all of which you did achieve.

Structurally 4 yellow 1 colorless is more efficient than 2 pairs of 2 colorless, I was wondering if you were just afraid of blocking and didn't want to risk paying for the 3 black reroute (or end up going down the double colorless pair path anyways) when you already wanted the 5 black. The colorless run is more awkward for the opponent to block and less impactful. I suspect you'd have gotten away with the 4 yellow 1 colorless run in any case, if the opponent had wanted the 1 colorless I'd have expected them to take it by then given the way they were playing, and I'd be a bit surprised to see them trying it as a blocking move, but who knows. That they end up wanting it later on due to new tickets is an ironic twist.

So it comes down to other parts of the structure, such as you aiming for the yellows for the 4 yellow/orange rather than using the 5 blue for again a more point efficient play, but in exchange you could use the 4 blue to Winnipeg to circle around and make a super-efficient route.

If an opponent nabs good tickets for their plays you can't outscore them, tickets are too efficient when they work, with the caveat that they usually don't land on tickets with that degree of efficiency. Generally, you have to outrace them, cutting off points from their loss of used pieces and any inefficiencies they have to endure to try and connect material. You'll usually win, but when the tickets align, there's no way to always predict how it could have been stopped, sometimes you just have to eat the loss.

To this end seeing you pick up a Locomotive was surprising and going for 45 cards instead of 44. Your lead in material meant longest route was yours to lose, so the extra unit doesn't contribute there, but it does eat a turn. So unless the extra card(s) could get that turn back, I don't see this working. The war on time seemed the bigger concern than the war for material.