Board Game Arena

Hi, I don't see many people posting here, so I hope this message won't go unnoticed...

So, when 2 players at the end of a game share the same number of points, the tie-breaker is... time left ? Really ?

I'd rather see a draw between the two players, or even the player who started last winning the game than such a ridiculous tie-breaker...

it used to just be a tie. yes this change is terrible.

Yes, this is a very silly tie-break rule!
But I think you need to write not to the forum, but to the registration system with an error and suggestions.

Very much agreed, tiebreaker based on time remaining is terrible, a tie should result in a tie, or we should come up with a better tiebreaker that is tied to gameplay.

Agree very odd tie-breaker. Please vote for http://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=23493&vote this suggestion bug to give it more attention.
In this game it feels fair to just have a draw when everything is equal at the end.

Well, this change does not bode well with turn based games tbh...

Trying this game for first time, and just finish a game in turn base that finish 12-12 score. And got the win in the game because time???

This is stupid tiebreker to be even in this game. Just give a tie.

No reason for existence of this tiebreker

I'd like to share a strategy for winning tiebreakers in non-tournament turn-based games, along with proposing a fairer and less cumbersome alternative applicable to any game type (tournament/real-time/turn-based/...).

In non-tournament turn-based games, when a tie seems imminent, the optimal strategy for winning the tiebreaker is to be the player who places the final square. The key to success lies in strategically timing your placement of this square to coincide with your opponent's offline period. Here's how it works: when it's your turn to place the square just before your opponent's final move, do so at a moment when you know your opponent is offline. Then, monitor the game for a brief period, say 5 minutes, before placing your last square the moment your opponent returns online and completes their final turn. If your opponent fails to reappear within this window, repeat the process, increasing the offline interval, say to 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and so forth. By managing your online presence effectively, you can ensure that your remaining time is less than your opponent's, greatly increasing your chances of victory.

Admittedly, this approach may seem somewhat unconventional, but in certain circumstances, a tiebreaker is necessary, such as in knockout tournaments. That said, I advocate for a more equitable tiebreaker based on the aforementioned strategy: simply award victory to the player who places the last square. This tiebreaker is fair and logical, as it removes any reliance on players' online availability. As players recognize the game's progression towards a tie, the focus shifts to securing the opportunity to make the final move. This tiebreaker also makes sense from a strategic standpoint: when both players vie for the last turn, the player with the most strategically positioned squares remaining in hand will have the best chance of winning. Additionally, for non-tournament turn-based games, this tiebreaker eliminates the need for constant vigilance over your opponent's online status while maintaining the strategic essence of breaking the tie.

The proposed tiebreaker also aligns naturally with United Square. Throughout the game, areas on the board are created where it is disadvantageous to begin placing squares. Consequently, players aim to place the last square in an area, forcing the opponent to start another. It seems natural to continue this gameplay approach for the final area in case of a tie. The player who manages to place the last square in the final area wins the tie.