Not much time has passed since Lizard, discussing blitz, said there is some meaning/enjoyment/skill/value in doing not what you are best at, but rather correctly prioritizing in the given circumstances.
But now Jebus Cross mirror has come out (IMHO also the best thing currently in Heroes in terms of combining dynamism and competitive play), and now even Lizard advocates for a timer that allows for quality play in Heroes, rather than "prioritizing in the circumstances created by Vicq".
Therefore, when developing rules or modifying gameplay, I prefer impartial analysis and formalizable evaluation criteria. From a pure spectator's perspective, this is easier to do than from a player's perspective, as there is no risk of falling into the psychological traps listed above.
For example, the "did everything I wanted" criterion is quite difficult to formalize; it is a subjective feeling of the player. But criteria like "match duration" and "action density" are quite measurable. Therefore, when choosing a timer, I rely precisely on them; to this end, I regularly watch streams, monitor the structure of timer usage, the number of technical-tactical actions, the number of actions a player wanted to perform but could not due to the timer, etc.
So do not think that I am pulling these numbers out of thin air. At the moment, the timer as stated in the rules seems optimal to me; I will continue watching streams and testing this assumption.
With that, I propose to end the discussion about the timer. If you want to play on a perfect, unchanging timer and under perfect, unchanging rules - wait about 2-3 years. For example, it is quite possible that one of the changes outlined in the previous post will be implemented into the rules directly during the tournament. If this prospect scares you - it is better not to sign up for the tournament.