You always have to get that type of position low on time...

If 10+5 is too fast for you, then play 15+10.

[@]tpr, don't let [@]RemRus read that!

More seriously, OP, both you and your opponent were in time trouble, so I'd say it was quite balanced.

"both you and your opponent were in time trouble"

• No, both had increment.
  The question is, if 5 seconds is enough to find the winning move or not.
  To decide, play a session of puzzle storm.
  How much time per puzzle did it take?
  If < 5 seconds, then 10+5 is fine.
  If < 10 seconds, then 15+10 is better.
  If < 20 seconds, then 30+20 is better.
  If < 30 seconds, then 30+30 is better.
  If < 45 seconds, then 45+45 is better.

@tpr said ^

If 10+5 is too fast for you, then play 15+10.

Meh, I prefer complaining about it.
I don't have energy for long thinks, you know.

"both had increment"

...decreasing the chance of (but not preventing) flagging let alone problems thinking in low time.

"play a session of puzzle storm"

In Puzzle Storm, one knows a tactic is to be found. Can the same be said for real games?

"In Puzzle Storm, one knows a tactic is to be found. Can the same be said for real games?"

• No, but if you need 6 seconds to solve a puzzle where you know there is no tactic, then you cannot convert a win in 5 seconds per move.
  If you can puzzle storm at 4 seconds per puzzle then 5 seconds increment should be enough to convert a win.

So that extra second will enable us to recognise that there's a tactic to be found?

"So that extra second will enable us to recognise that there's a tactic to be found?"

• In a game you always have to assume there is a tactic, until you have ascertained yourself there is none.
  Point is you need more increment than your time to solve a puzzle.

Well, it would be cool if someone discussed that position, because it is very interesting one...