WARNING: INCOMING WALL OF TEXT!

I just finished playing two really intense games with Murlock. In both games the outcome was uncertain and we were 25+ turns into the game with entities all over the board. In each game the winner won because the other person ran out of time and the winner only had a couple seconds left on the clock. I definitely only had 2 seconds left when I won and he had something like 15 seconds left when he won. In the end, the winner wasn't decided on the playing field though.

I've played a lot of really intense games similar to these since I started playing a month ago. There's nothing more fun than a really close game. Sometimes these games can go deep into the rounds and time becomes a huge issue. I understand the need for a timer, it keeps the game flowing and eliminates stalemates. However, I hate when a close game comes down to who can "PASS" faster in the end. It ends up ruining some of the best games. You can end up playing a 40 minute game (20 minutes each player) and the outcome isn't decided by skill, but who can "PASS ALL" faster and sometimes who has less lag. This isn't a fun way for a game to end imho. I'd rather win or lose based on gameplay, not the clock (unless one person is just incredibly slow).

I have a suggestion for overcoming this which is commonly used in chess. Allow games to have a fixed (base) AND variable (incremental) timer. Here's a few examples:

a) 15 minutes + 20 seconds per round
b) 10 minutes + 30 seconds per round
c) 20 minutes + 30 seconds per round (starting after round 20)
d) 5 minutes + 45 seconds per round

This would permit for more time in games that are going really deep into the rounds, but could also end up speeding up games as well. Here's a table of how much time a player would be allotted based on what round they're in from the examples above.

Round..........Example A..........Example B..........Example C..........Example D
..05...............16:40................12:30................20:00................08:45
..10...............18:20................15:00................20:00................12:30
..15...............20:00................17:30................20:00................16:15
..20...............21:40................20:00................20:00................20:00
..25...............23:20................22:30................22:30................23:45
..30...............25:00................25:00................25:00................27:30

As you can see, you can still keep the speed of the games up with this method. Games can now go longer if you've played a lot of rounds, but this can also be used to speed up the games that don't go as deep into the rounds.

The only drawback I can see is if a game somehow turns into a stalemate, which is unacceptable for EC's or some tournaments. There's ways to deal with stalemates though too. For example:

• Stop the incremental timer after round x
• Cap the game length at xx:xx
• Declare the winner after round x based on score, etc.

The incremental timer is very popular and successful in chess and think it would apply just as easily and successfully in TFW. For players who like the timer the way it is, they can simple set the incremental timer to 0.

I think games more tend to go deeper in drafts and sealed deck games because the decks aren't as strong on average, which can tend to make the games a little longer as well. I think it would be a good idea to have this type of incremental timer option available for sealed and draft games especially.

Yeah games decided by time are really unsatisfying.
We can certainly add this for games that other people aren't waiting on. but for things like EC and other multiplayer tournaments I think we can't really allow the games to go longer.

Great idea! The "click fast" part of the end game is really not very satisfying.

Unfortunately it would mess around with game play to decide the game on who has the most glory at a certain point. Deck built around Heat wave would suddenly flourish

To keep the "mean game time" around the same as now, I think the new time limits would need to be slightly stricter than the ones you suggest. Perhaps turn 25 = 20 min is a good balancing point?

this has been discussed here before: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=750

also, this article may be helpful to those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_control

my preference would be a button in "Options" or on the main screen to request more time, likely in five minute increments. the AI, in particular, could always grant this request. a downside is that it will make a declining player look like a bad guy ... but such is life. personally, I'd be inclined to always grant more time unless that person has denied my request in the past.

a secondary preference would be a "Pass All" that extends across rounds. maybe implemented as a checkbox near "Pass All" ... or even something that is enabled through options and changes the way "Pass All" works. if both users activate this more powerful "Pass All", the game should end immediately and be scored based on well control followed by glory, followed by whoever clicked "Pass All" later.

as for ECs or other situations where more players than simply those in the game can be affected ... this is already an issue because players in tournaments can still "pause".

I like queeshai's idea of opponent giving time, just not in tournaments or leagues where prizes are given out, and is decided by fast decisions. For those with connection problems like myself try using autocue to submit your move before your turn, while it has to be used carefully actions planned out the turn before yours would be canceled if action is invalidated by your opponents action.

Time planned is time saved. ^_^

cheers

I agree with EC & Tournaments not being allowed to go longer if they are Match-Play events such as head-to-head single/double elimination brackets.

However, I also think you could let some of the closer games that are deep into rounds go a little bit longer (a few minutes at most) while still shortening the length of tournaments on average with the correct time combination. You could always set a max time limit and/or max # of rounds for tournaments that would help to speed up shorter (round-wise) games.


My numbers were loosely based on 25 minute games, which is what I think free sealed games are. As you said, they can easily be altered to speed up or slow down games to the desired "mean game time".


Actually, what I'm proposing is a "Time Extension" for games that go deep into the rounds rather than a "Pass All" scenario that often results from longer games. These are typically the best games and, as jed said, oftentimes unsatisfying to end via time. The incremental time format will actually punish slow play more than the current format. Incremental time will help to keep the pace of play up (flow of the game). A player who takes 20 minutes to play 25 rounds is much faster than a player who takes 20 minutes to play 15 rounds. 20 minutes for 25 rounds is a good pace imho. However, if someone is taking 20 minutes and we're only in round 15, well then I can guarantee I'm either tabbed out surfing the internet or frequently going afk for 15-30 seconds at a time to grab a drink, etc., and have lost a lot of interest in the match.


One of the possible solutions that immediately came to mind was allowing players to request more time. I didn't like this solution though and didn't include it because I think it will cause more problems in the long run. I think it will cause problems because it will either just become customary to always grant extra time or become a problem when someone denies the request. If you know that your opponent will allow you to add more time if you request it, then you might as well just make the time limit longer to start with since they will subconsciously know that they still have more time. I think it's most likely that this option would just make games longer or cause a problem when someone denies a request. It doesn't address the issue of keeping the pace of play up though.


This might be a good solution for EC and tournaments, but I think most will agree that it's not very satisfying way to decide an intense, hard-fought match.

Psyclone, do you use the "auto submit" movement feature? I've won countless games this way... at times when I was low on time, and in "time war" games. You have to be careful with it though, or you might make moves you didn't want to.

I kind of think of auto submit like speed chess-- you think on your opponent's time and then move almost instantaneously when it's your turn.

No, I've never really understood how Auto-submit worked.

I agree it is not much fun when time is a decider in a game. However, I do not believe that Psyclone’s suggestions will have the desired effect. The reasons are:
1. TFW is not chess. For example, players take one action per round in chess. In TFW, there is a theoretically unlimited number of actions per round and a limit on the time per action. That is a big difference and important to consider when comparing timing systems.
2. As alluded to by several people, TFW must avoid open ended or stalemated games. Regarding Psyclone’s suggestions to avoid open ended or stalemated games …
- Stop the incremental timer after round x… This is not that different from the current system. Say we take system A and decide the incremental timer stops after 30 rounds after which the game ends in 5 minutes. Then the maximum game length is 15 minutes + 30 rounds*20 seconds/round + 5 min, or 30 minutes. Why not just make the game length 30 minutes? It is easier on the programmers and easier to understand as there is no math involved.
- Cap the game length at xx:xx…ummm… I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure this is the current system.
- Declare the winner after round x based on score, etc… Doing this would be an actual change instead of smoke and mirrors changes on the current method because it changes how the winner is decided when a timeout occurs. For this reason, I favor it over the other suggestions if an incremental timer is implemented. I suspect, however, that people will dislike losing 8-4 when their opponent times out as much as they dislike losing right now when they timeout.

In addition, I do not believe an incremental timer would speed up games which end in the earlier rounds. Nearly all of the time, if a game ends in the early rounds, it is a quick game because the loser is getting steamrolled. Changing the timing method would not alter that and would not make it happen faster.
There is nothing in the current mechanics of the game preventing people from playing 30 rounds in 25 minutes in the current system. Most timeouts are due to slow players and/or lag. The current system is a hard cap on the game time with a maximum time allowed per action. To me, leaving the hard cap and reducing the maximum time per action a player can take is the best way to reduce the chance of a time out deciding the game. This, of course, penalizes slow players and people with laggy connections. Doing this would lead to complaints that people don’t have time to figure out what they want to do or are being unfairly penalized because of a poor connection.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect system. Some people are unhappy with current system. Other people will be made unhappy if something else is implemented. Myself, I think the current system is adequate. It is simple and definite, which are two big plusses IMO. I don’t play a lot of limited games so I can’t comment on 25 minutes being a good time limit for those games. If enough people think it is too short, perhaps the easiest thing to do is make the 25 minutes into 30 or 35 minutes.

No, this is not chess. Incremental time is not for chess only either. I just mentioned chess because it is one of the more recognizable places you might find this time system.


This is a simple 7th grade 1 line single variable algebra equation. A timer of 15 minutes + 20 seconds/round isn't complicated.

I don't know where you got this from:
15 minutes + 30 rounds*20 seconds/round + 5 min

I think you're just trying to make it complicated. Your equation is simplified to:
20 minutes + 20 seconds/round

See, not complicated.


You misread this section. This was a suggestion of a possible way to implement an incremental timer for tournaments, which have to have a much shorter time limit to keep them flowing. This in not the current system as there is no incremental timer. This would just add a few extra minutes to some of the deeper games.


How are the other methods a smoke and mirror change? I think you're misinterpreting the table I made. Most of the options end at 25 minutes after 30 rounds because I intentionally choose them to come to those numbers. You can change the base and incremental times to any values you want. They won't always come out to 25 minutes for 30 rounds if you do.


Huh? How would you ever lose if your opponent is the one timing out? You both have different timers.


In the early rounds it won't make much of a difference at all. Unless the player was just incredibly slow.

What if you're in the middle rounds though? If you're only on turn 15, then the game is going to end after 17:30 (example B) or 16:15 (example D) instead of after 20:00. Once again, this will only affect games moving at a slow pace.


I always have a few games every day that are decided by the timer. The entire problem with this is that they are always the closest and most exciting games. I think just about everyone is at least a little unsatisfied when games end this way. I'm personally very unsatisfied. Winning by timeout isn't gratifying either, at least for me. I'm always disappointed in games that end this way. And this is the entire reason I suggested an incremental timer. This would greatly reduce the number of games that have this undesirable ending.



You can always set the base time to 25 minutes and the incremental timer to 0 seconds/turn. This will not eliminate the current system, it will just give more options.


I think this is a big reason why you don't think there's a need for incremental timers.

Limited games is where the timer is a much bigger issue imho. Constructed decks are waaaaaaay stronger than limited decks, which I think leads to much quicker games. Limited decks are quite a bit weaker than default decks in my experiences. I think games also tend to go longer in limited because many times you're forced to create decks loaded with creatures with an attack of only 1 or 2. Also, you don't have many of the better spells, enchants or buildings either. It's actually quite common to see people playing 3-domains in limited because it's much harder to make a deck due to synergy or just bad distributions.