Tied Games

[cometbah]

I know that this does not happen very often, but I was going against lluis83's Time/Aether in Top-50 with a Mindgate deck, and got very close to a tie. We both have Eternities and more shards for healing than the opponent's damage output. The only reason I ended up winning was because of the AI's stupidity.

This got me thinking:

What if two human players with Eternity went against each other, and both have enough regenerative power to completely recover from the opponent's damage immediately at end-game? The result would make the weapon of Time true to its name in the most literal sense... and the issue of who should forfeit would arise.

The most practical solutions I can think of:

Add the possibility of ending a match prematurely by consent. E.g. provide a 'tie game' button, upon the pressing of which a proposal to end the game would be presented to the opponent, with the options to accept or decline. If the proposal is accepted, the entry fee for the match would be returned to each player and no rewards would be given. The frequency at which the proposal button can be pressed could be limited to prevent abuse.

(on a related note, lluis83's Time/Aether vs. Mindgate actually does manage to avoid tied games due to the presence of the Anubis - whoever manages to immortalize all of the opponent's creatures first wins xD)

Edit:
Nevermind, the matchup does not always avoid tied games. All we need is one non-immortalized card for each player, heh.

[cometbah]

In board game chess, there is a rule called "three fold repetition".

I did not suggest automatic mechanisms such as this because it is quite possible that one player will eventually win after 100 turns (or much more with Shards of Divinity =9) of rewinding, and it would be unfair to force a draw prematurely with repetition-recognizing mechanisms.

A non-automatic solution ensures that there is no dispute. Perhaps it could have been a miscalculation on the players' part, but at least it would be a consensual miscalculation - there is no one to blame but themselves.

[Isei]

The problem with games that take an hour of repetitious looping with eternity is that, given at least my track record, one of the players is likely to have connection problems, which will end the game in an unsatisfactory manner, anyway.

[cometbah]

Hence the need for a means of ending the game in a draw by consent =)

Now that you mention it, it could also be used when there are severe problems with synchronization.

[Neopergoss]

Consent is inadequate. If one player wants the win and refuses to declare a tie it will degenerate into an endurance competition. Better to have some kind of automatic mechanism. Consent should be an option, but something should kick in just in case. I'm not sure exactly how this should be designed, though.

[OldTrees]

In PvP Duel you just repeat until their is a victor or record a tie depending on the Event.
In PvE the E wins ties or more accurately the P cannot win ties and thus quits to play again.
In PvP 1 and PvP 2 tie games are rare enough that the loss in grinding/enjoyment by choosing to lose a tie is small enough that it does not warrant more code.

Conclusion: Tie games have resolutions except in PvP 1 and PvP 2. In PvP 1 and PvP 2 the benefit from adding any tie resolution mechanism beyond unilateral forfeiture is not worth the required code.

[silux]

Games should not last more than 53 turns(60 cards deck).
When it happens wins the player who has more health or has lost the coin toss.