There's a problem with the time-out system when both players realize they can't win before they will time out. In situations like this, it's fair that the person who has the most time left should win. In reality, both players press pass repeatedly, and whoever presses the fastest (or has the fastest connection) wins, even if they were originally behind on time.
I think a better system would be to have a multi-turn auto-pass. The person who is ahead on time and doesn't think the other player can beat them in the time they have left can press this. Then the other player would have to try to beat them in the time they have left. If both players press it, it could count down both clocks, forcing the player who's behind to play or lose.

it's been "on the agenda" to have a time-out treated as you just pass, but there hasn't been any movement on this. considering the tourney timer has been decreased, I think it might be time to focus on this. it comes up quite a lot.

How about next (it looks easier for me) solution:
if both players control 0 flux wells for X rounds game ends with draw (X value between 5-10). I prefer draw in such cases because winning by time out is mainly for make player act faster, rather than actual time out win. If you don't like draw another solution is compare timers after X rounds and player with more time wins.

Altren, what about if both players pass for x turns [5?] then the game is declared over. At that point, the winner is decided in this order:

Most Glory wins
If equal glory, most flux wells controlled wins
if both of the above are tied declare a draw.

If, as you say, more people dislike the idea of a draw, then use time clock as the final judge, but I think this is pretty fair and fairly simple to implement. The biggest issue then would be how do you then handle draws in a tourney/league?

MistStlkr your solution looks better, because it's also possible that both players have one flux well, but can't cast anything at all.

What if one player out of cards, but control one point and another have no points?

So there should be different order:
1) Most flux wells controlled wins
2) Most Glory wins
3) if both of the above are tied
-declare a draw
or
- use time clock as the final judge

For the sake of simplicity, let's go with your example below, player A has one well and no cards, player B has cards remaining but no wells.

In this case, who wins comes down to whether player B has any buildings in their deck remaining. They should be able to auto-build and use that structure to win.. that isn't out of the question. Changing that would make a big difference in the current game mechanics. So we can't use the fact that they control zero wells as the deciding factor in calling the game. So assuming we are still going with the [5?]-pass rule to call the game, I'd say that yes, player A wins for having "control of the board"... as marginally controlled it is with one well, they do have more control. Even if you start with 0 flux you should be able to get a building out on auto-build within 5 turns, right? I forget how many flux points you get if you don't control any at all.

However, in that same situation, if player B has the glory advantage than they were clearly at an advantage at some point in the game. Do we reward them the win for having had the advantage or do we give the win to A for coming back from behind and driving them off the map, even at the cost of using every card they had and they were unable to secure the board? In my mind, it is a toss up... clearly they have both accomplished something there, and both had the advantage at some point. So to pick one over the other would be choosing to skew the game towards early-game decks [glory gets more weight than end result] or late-game decks [lower glory but wiped the opponent off the map]. It may not be fair at all, when you look at it this way, to use glory as the primary tie breaker....


Given this viewpoint, I'd say that the most fair way would be some sort of equation which gives different weight to the different "objectives"... for example, 5 points per additional flux well, 10 points per additional glory point, and a point for every x seconds remaining on your clock. Whoever has the most tiebreaker points wins. That is rather complicated and not really something I'd like to see int he game though...

So barring the complex equation, the only unbiased way to do a tiebreaker would be time-based. Even then, some decks just take more time than others to do.. using a seedburst, for example, and having to click and animate each seedling. Or using a Trickster's ability a few times in a round. Or a Magnetite's ability. Those all take time and aren't particularly fair to bias a game against them either.... and this biases the game in the favour of the veterans who already know every card and it's abilities on sight.


So in short, I don't know the best way to do this. It seems to me that any way that I can think of will tilt the balance of the game towards a specific strategy/deck and penalize others.

If I had to pick one method right now to go with, I'd say that I like the idea of using a 5-pass rule to call the game then basing it off of controlled wells [or perhaps hexes?] first , then time remaining. I'd like to see other peoples' opinions on the matter though, I'm sure there are plenty of things I haven't taken into consideration, and perhaps there are others that I gave too much thought to as well....

KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid

There is a lot of confusing talk circulating here involving confusing equations that are not simple enough for every player to understand. The way I see it, a tie should not be possible. How would a tie be handled fairly in a tournament, for instance? You can't hold up the tournament for one tie game, and it's not fair to randomly choose a winner.

Situation 1:
Today I tied a game with Altren. On round 28 I made 20 glory by casting two spells with Benefits of Spectacle up (+1 Glory per spell cast). The turn ended. Next turn began, Altren received 20 glory by gaining +2 glory for owning more Flux wells than me. The Glory check kicked in immediately after and we tied. Altren was randomly deemed the winner of the match and continued to win the tournament.

My solution to this problem:
Keep the mechanic that only checks for victory at the beginning of the round. However, keep track of when each player achieved 20 glory in case both are at or over 20 during the beginning of the next round. Whomever reached 20 glory first, wins. If both win at the same time (Say, both are at 19 glory and both have a Benefits of Spectacle cast) then the players have 5 rounds to break the tie. At the beginning of any of the 5 rounds, if the glory is no longer equal, whoever has the most wins. If 5 rounds go by and both players are still equal, the player with the most time left on the clock wins.

Situation 2:
The situation I believe you're referring to is running out of cards and passing until someone runs out of time. This seems like a flaw in game-play to me. This should never happen.

My solution to this problem:
If you run out of cards to draw, you have 5 turns before you lose. This not only solves the passing contest but also adds a pro-con mechanic to deck sizes. In smaller decks, you'll find you get the cards you need faster and more often, but you are more prone to running out of cards. In larger decks, you're safer from running out of cards but are less likely to draw a card you want. Good decks will be neither too small nor too large, and deck sizes will pose more important trade-offs.

These are just my suggestions. Feel free to improve on them.

It is my opinion that if you're having to implement a new system of skipping time in order to score a time based victory, then there is a larger problem at hand.

*I* would like to see a system implemented where you can't win or lose due to time alone, there should at least be some other factor involved,or just a straight tie.

I.e. get rid of independent timers (but keep the turn timers) and have 1 mutual/shared match timer. If that time runs out, and there is no victor, it looks at who has the most glory. If that is tied, too, then it looks at something else (flux?). If that is also tied, then well, it's just counted as a tie (how novel).

I think you missed the point. The time win has been around since the beginning, we are discussing ho to make it more fair. It is rather common for a game that has run close to the limit to become as much about deciding IF you want to move as where/how to move, int he effort to save those few seconds. Currently, if you run out of time you lose. Even if you had control of the board and had more glory. We are discussing if that is fair or how to make it more fair.

I don't see why this is unfair to begin with. You both go into the battle knowing you have a certain amount of time to act. If your time exceeds the maximum, you lose. Time is a factor. What's unfair about that? If you're winning and you time out, it's due to your own failure to plan and act expediently.