[TiGD] Deconstructing Ticket to Ride

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there weren't labels on this 'arguement', especially not one associated with my name. I'm not trying to argue with anyone or convince anyone that their way of thinking is incorrect. I'm simply stating my opinion, formed from 1 playing of the game and some discussion on the net (here and on BGG).

I'm afraid people may have read more into my comments than I intended, so just to make myself clear:

I do not claim that Ticket to Ride is flawed, perse. I DO claim that the scoring is unbalanced, and that the game rewards one thing more than another and it does so over and over again.

I claim as well that I am not a fan of the 'whoever claims the long routes first is at an advantage' aspect of the game. I do not claim that other people are not allowed to enjoy that. I imagine a game between experienced players would probably begin as a contest to claim long routes.

I do not and have never claimed that by going for long routes you will automatically win. My point was that it's better to go after the longer routes, and if you do anything else you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. In this respect it's similar to the claim people have made about Princes of Florence- that if you try to do anything other than get Jesters then you are at a disadvantage.

I have not commented on any mechanics, especially on the repetetiveness of any mechanic in particular. When I say "over and over" I'm referring to scoring from long tracks, not anything mechanical.

To respond to the comment about the basic choice each turn- that you can either claim a route or draw some cards- I will note that you can only choose to claim a route if you happen to have the appropriate cards in your hand. I only point this out to show that it's not always possible to do things like defend against a route because you might not have the right cards.

To respond to the comment that you can notice an opponent drawing Red cards and can yourself start to draw Red cards to deny that player enough Red to claim a long route: I suggest that is probably not the best play. Even if you note a particular player concentrating on Red cards, there's no reasonable way to know which Red route he is trying to claim. And even if your counterdrafting Red cards stops that player from claiming a long route, it does nothing about the other player drafting Orange cars for a long Orange route. Furthermore, while you may be able to use the Red cars yourself, you're spending time counterdrafting rather than furthing your own interests. You can't stop the Red player from getting Red cards completely, so denying him some only slows him down if anything, and at the cost of your own game. Best case, you needed the Red cards for a Red route anyway, and so it doesn't cost you anything to counterdraft that player... but you can't stop all theplayers from drafting the cards they want so it seems silly to me to try and stop any of them (with the possible exception of the leader when you are trying to overtake them, but that occurs late in the game if at all).

And finally, on the comment that it's too easy to dismiss a game after one play... The conclusions I've drawn are not likely to change after further plays, because they are based on my observations from playing, observing, and to an extent analysing the game. What may change is my opinion of those conclusions- wheather the things I don't like about the game continue to bother me. I would play TtR again, and indeed I often like to play a game a couple of times to see if I've figured it out or not, to see if I have learned anything from my initial plays (either good or bad).

In the case of TtR my first play I lost miserably, and I could see why- I concentrated on completing my tickets (mostly short ones), and I drew extras expecting to finish them. I ended up being blocked out of one of my longer tickets, and I identified at least 1 mistake I made which led to that. But even having completed that route I would have come in 3rd at best (out of 4). The player that won had completed several long routes and connected them for the longest track bonus. The player that came in second had a cross country tack (including multiple long tracks) and drew extra cards a couple times and was happy to find routes he'd already completed or was a short track or so away from completing.

- Seth

Yeah, and? As others have pointed out, the payout schedule for length of track is not linear. You score more for long tracks. I don't know why this is an arguement, it's just an observation. A further observation is that the other scoring is facilitated by having the longer routes which are worth more to begin with.

It may be more difficult to obtain longer routes, and therefore they should be worth more points- which is fine. It's still not a balanced situation. Maybe we're using two different versions of the word balanced or something.

I don't know what's extraordinary about it, but I listed the evidence above.

They aren't saying I'm wrong as much as they're saying they don't mind the scoring as it is. Most of the posts in this thread basically support my observations, but then go on to say that it's a good game anyway, or that their mother-in-law likes the game, or whatever. They also point out that TtR:Europe "fixes" some of the things I've mentioned, implying that I'm not the only one that didn't like them.

Well, if they're similar arguements then someone (like you) who disputes one will likely dispute the other. I don't see how it undermines anything either way. I still play Princes of Florence even though I am starting to agree with the BGG people who have made the claim that it's all about Jesters, but maybe that's just because (a) I haven't become bored by it yet or (b) I haven't been playing with experienced players.

I think you missed the point of that sentance. It went hand in hand with the following sentance. Upon futher plays I may well change my opinion of the game, either for or against, but I don't see how I could change my observation of what the scoring rewards. The next time I play I will certainly aim to get long routes first, so as not to get shut out of them and beat handily like last time.

Noone's saying you can't win with short routes only. What people have said is that it's harder, because that type of thing is not rewarded as much. Certainly if noone (or everyone equally) claims long routes or gets new tickets, then whoever claims the most (or 'best'- whatever that might mean) short routes and finishes their original tickets will win. So to give yourself an edge you have to either take MORE routes, take LONGER routes, or get (and complete) more tickets.

If you intentionally don't do any of those, then you CAN still win, but I think it's unlikely. That's not any kind of problem with the game. My complaint isn't that you have to do the things that reward you more in order to win- that's true of any game. My complaint is how much more you're rewarded for certain things, along with how little control you have over wheather or not you can do those things.

I don't know, do you? I assume that's not the case (that you've broken the game system), and that you cannot win every game without long routes, just like nppne can win every game even if they go for long routes. I think there's a difference between saying "I want to get long routes" and "I got a bunch of long routes". The former won't necessarily happen. The latter, by definition, *has* happened.

My original position was that claiming long tracks is rewarded in every aspect of the scoring. If you take a short track you are rewarded a little in VPs, and a little in that it helps complete a ticket, and a little in that it could apply to a longest track bonus. If you claim a long track you are rewarded a lot more in VPs, a lot more in that it helps you complete longer tickets, and even more in that it could apply to a longest track bonus. So the long tracks outscore the short ones in every aspect of the scoring.

Other posts have indicated (and it's very difficult to deny) that the long tracks are worth more by themselves. That's simply the VP reward structure, and it's printed right on the board.

Other posts have also pointed out something that I hadn't even included, the game time it takes to claim a long route vs a short one. The economy of turns also favors claiming long routes.

And other posts have agreed that long routes facilitate longest track bonus and long tickets.

So that's where I'm coming from when I say that posts in this thread support my position. the difference seems to be that most posters don't care or even prefer this scoring situation whereas I didn't like it much, especially on my first playing where I didn't notice until it was too late that my opponents were benefitting exponentially more than I was for a similar action.

Did I explain it well enough above?

You can see what the scoring rewards without even playing once, if you look hard enough. I usually don't look that hard BEFORE playing, but after my first shot at a game I do try and look that closely. I don't see how scoring opportunities can appear where they weren't before simply by playing more. I DO see how playing more may allow you to find ways to take advantage of scoring opportunities though.

I never said there was a single strategy. I would claim that there's an obvious (once you see how the scoring works) approach- claiming long routes- which will give you an advantage. There are lots of strategies I'm sure, and I haven't fully considered all of them, but I can tell that any of them that involve avoiding long routes will be like fighting an uphill battle. It doesn't mean it can't win, but in a game with good players I imagine it would be very difficult- like maybe a 'grab all the short routes you can and complete lots of short tickets' approach would win if all the other players are fighting over the long routes and it happens that they split them all evenly and they don't connect to give anyone the longest track bonus (and all your short routes do connect)... just as an example.

Similarly in PoF I imagine a builder strategy can win if veryone fights over the Jesters so much that either the guy who gets them pays way too much, or everyone gets one, maybe 2, and noone gets a third (the guy with 2 is probably in good shape anyway, but if he paid too much he might not win).

I never like to claim that any single strategy will always win, because obviously that's not the case, as you say here. Any strategy CAN win if this, that, and the other happen. If I were to laim anything in this respect it would be that it's much easier to win if you claim long routes, and that the people who get the long routes (or more of them) probably win more often than the people who don't (It wouldn't suprise me if that were the case, I don't have any evidence either way.)

Thus, perhaps all players would go for long routes, and that's fine. That's certainly the approach I'll take the next time I play.

Now this I HAVE done. I've considered, and indeed tried to impliment, pure builder strategies. there's a mathematical limit to your score when you do that, so if you can keep your opponents from beating that score, then you can win. Of course, you don't have much you can do to stray from your plan, so keeping your opponents from beating your maximum possible score isn't really within your power.

In PoF I would contend that IF you see people bickering over Jesters too much, THEN you could start to apply a builder strategy and perhaps come out on top. But if any player gets multiple Jesters they probably will outscore a Builder strategy if they know what they're doing. If they get 3 Jesters then that becomes rediculously easy.

Right, I now basically think PoF is about trying to get Jesters and depending on the other players' actions, continuing to try for them, or giving up on them and going for some builders. Though I always like to get at least 1 builder before buying buildings because the price break is a big deal.

The point that the 'only 1 strategy' people make is this: even if you 'play properly,' a builder strategy in PoF or a Short Track strategy in TtR will simply lose to a Jester strategy or a Long Track strategy that is also played properly. The only way to beat those dominant strategies is if the other players do enough blocking and you stick to your guns, or if you join them (and abandon your lesser strategy).

- Seth

[edit: I tried to post this right after my last post but the site went down. I't sback up now so here we go]

So we're sorta mixing 2 conversations here. With Princes of Florence I know that this phenomenon happens at least to some degree because I have more experience with it. With Ticket to Ride I am saying that I believe the same phenomenon could exist very easily for all the same reasons. I do not have the experience with TtR to definitively state weather there is one dominant strategy. However due to the nature of the scoring which I've discussed, it wouldn't suprise me.

- Seth

P.S. Darke: I agree, it would make sense to have a 'most tickets' bonus to compliment the 'longest track' bonus. But I bet Jeff would have something to say about what that might do to the delicate balance of the scoring. I would agree with him that it would change the intended reward structure... though I might say it were for the better and not for the worse.

Seth,

I think that you're confusing everyone in this conversation, including yourself, by using a non-standard definition of the word "unbalanced". It appears from your reply to David that your observation is simply that long routes are rewarded asymmetrically. That's not at all the same thing as "unbalanced". As I said previously, a game is said to be "balanced" when the cost/difficulty/risk/consequences of acquiring a certain commodity or pursuing a particular scoring avenue are comparable to the costs/difficulties/risks/consequences of the other available commodities or the other scoring avenues. To say whether a game is "unbalanced", you have to evaluate the whole package.

Here's a simple analogy. What if, in PR, coffee paid out 18 gold at the Trade house. Now, that would make coffee "unbalanced" relative to the other commodities, since its payout is much better and would then be the "best" choice. In contrast, the various crops in PR are currently asymmetric; coffee pays out more than tobacco pays out more than sugar etc, but these better payouts are balanced by attendant difficulties and limitations which make winning by various paths possible.

Or, imagine in Axis and Allies, where there's a new unit called the "War Render", which hits on 6 or less and costs 2 to build. Clearly, this unit is "imbalanced" relative to the other units, because its performance per unit cost is so much better, and every sensible player would immediately buy as many "War Renders" as possible.

Here's another example; I played the excellent game "Goldland" the other day, and we misinterpreted a rule: In the correct rules, the player who completes the most Adventures of a given type (eg, surviving the desert, swimming a lake, defeating a puma, etc) gets some VPs. But we played that the first player to complete an adventure of that type got the VPs. This made this scoring system "imbalanced" because it unfairly rewarded
the players who had the good luck to draw the first adventure tiles in each category.

So what you're saying about TtR, that long routes appear to be more heavily rewarded, is a correct observation about the symmetry of the game's scoring systems. But balance usually refers to either the overall fairness of a game, or to the relative "goodness" of a particular strategic path. And as David observes, there's been copious counter-evidence in this thread, including from players more experienced than you and I, that different strategies are possible, and not all of them necessarily involve long routes.

Another point I'll make is that the "long routes" strategy doesn't even appear to me to be a sure thing. Take a look at the board and the cards and tell me (a) which long routes you'd claim and (b) which tickets reward those routes and (c) what you'd do if you don't draw those tickets or if someone blocks you and (d) how to ensure you draw the cards you need to complete those routes. In other words, I still think the long route strategy isn't a sure thing.

As I've said all along, I still don't have any reason to think the game is imbalanced. I don't think you're saying that either; I think you're simply saying that the systems are "asymmetric". Hopefully I've adequately explained the distinction.

-Jeff