DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.” Auto-translated

it's been a long time coming, but the chess timers also need to be chosen correctly; sometimes there are such huge ones that by the end of the game, 2 hours of time remain, and the game, for example, ends on move 145.

Naturally, each template will have its own timer; for example, XL+U clearly needs a longer timer than L-Ki, because the template itself is larger in size, and more actions and maneuvers are required + computers. As an option for 8mm6a, an analogue of today's 10 minutes in SOD or 4000+400 in WT could be 60+6+2.
For 2sm4d3, an analogue of 6 minutes, or 3000+300 in WT, will suffice - 30+6+1. And so on, think through and write down for each template.

Specifying a chess timer in the seasonal rules is a PR move, not an administrative decision. That is, it doesn't obligate anyone to anything, but merely recommends it. The following figures are most often used: 8+4+1 on M 16+6+1 on L 30+8+1 on XL (including Jeb) Discussions and votes should be based on these figures – who wants it higher, and who wants it lower?

Introducing a chess timer into the seasonal rules is a PR move, not an administrative decision. That is, it doesn’t obligate anyone to anything, but merely recommends it.

As for the numbers, roughly these are most commonly used:

8+4+1 on M
16+6+1 on L
30+8+1 on XL (including Jebus Cross)

These should be the starting point in discussions and votes — who wants higher, who wants lower?

Well said about it being a PR move :smile12:

And 30+8+1 on XL+U is too much in my opinion, the timer almost always just goes up, has anyone tried something smaller, like 40+7+1(2)? I don’t mean Jebus Cross.

Though, if the game drags on a lot — then a bigger timer is of course a plus

I agree that for each template, a recommended chess timer should be provided, so that if players want to play with a chess timer, there will be no disputes about how long to set it.

Vik has provided correct values, but slow learners will complain.

Vik has the correct values listed, but the slowpokes will complain.

Why would anyone prevent them from playing with unlimited resources?

I also like Vikka's timers. The L value should be differentiated for SM and panic, and 10+6+1 would be fine for balancing, while 16 would be good for Diamond.
I don't understand HL, so I won't comment on it. The optimal value is also indicated for M.

IMO the timer should fit what you need in generel and not be a time bank that will gradually decrease and leave you in time problems every single time if the game goes long.

If your army is weak you need some time to handle hard fights and you should not be punished on time compared to the guy who runs around with 50 wyverns. Therefore 1 min is simply to little.

Time for battles should be 2-4 min. Personally I find 2 min to short but I can live with it.

I suggest 18 8 on XLs and mini nostalgia, 17 7 on 2sm4d(3) and diamond and 16 6 for balance and panic.

For consistency, the Start time should be a multiple of the Turn time, in my opinion. For example: M: 12+4+1 (Start = 3 * Turn) L: 24+6+1 (Start = 4 * Turn) - similar to a 5-6 minute standard SOD timer XL: 40+8+1 (Start = 5 * Turn) - based on the fact that 60+8+1 is similar to an 8-9 minute standard SOD timer. Making the Battle time longer than 1 minute seems unreasonable; it's better to increase the Start time, so people can reasonably accumulate time for non-trivial battles. Otherwise, there is a risk that battles like "group of harpies against a horde of zombies" will become widespread again. I would like to remind you that the third parameter of the timer (Battle time) is the time allocated for EACH battle.

It's not easy for me to find (and justify) a precise position, as I am, in fact, "that very slowpoke."
Fortunately, so far, almost no one in the discussion has bothered to try to justify their point of view. I will at least try.
There are a couple of things that seem obvious to me here:

1) The chess timer is incomparably better than the standard one, and it should be welcomed and promoted in every way.

2) Moretti is close to being a benchmark for micromanagement, and if he says that even 2 is too low for the third digit, then there must be something to it.
Setting the battle timer to 1 is a deliberate push towards excessive simplification of the gameplay at the expense of quality.
2 is much better, and in my opinion, for all templates in general – simply because this number doesn't let you get bored, and it doesn't force the player into a constant time crunch, where the first thought in every battle is – click faster.

Regarding "2 too short" – you just need to make an additional approximate assessment – how many battles are there in this template where you need to micromanage thoroughly, and give a comfortable margin with the first digit.
For example, if you estimate that for jebus, 5 battles of increased difficulty are normal, with about 6 minutes each, then (6-2)*5 = 20 additional minutes in the first digit.
Have we ever aimed to make the minimum possible timer when choosing timers? The goal is to find a timer on which you can play normally, but at the same time, you can't slack off. Setting the battle timer to 1 makes it impossible to play at your best level; the player will simply have to give up on some battles to save time. This was seriously discussed as a feature of the M200 tournament. This option can be considered for individual tournaments, but not for seasonal rules and default game recommendations.
In conclusion, the best third digit by default is 2, for all templates and options in general. It's simple and just right.

All that remains is to explain why the quality of battles is more important than the quality of actions on the adventure map. Why should more time be allocated to battles, but not to building chains and analyzing the global strategy? The "+1 minute" option allows players not to waste time on simple battles that are easily won but require a certain number of mandatory clicks. If the battle is difficult, then time from the total pool should be spent on it. And players who spend less time in battles or do it faster should spend time on tasks that they consider more important.

Right now, I'm playing 8mm6a with Vika's timer. At the beginning, there were a lot of battles of varying difficulty, and I lost a lot of timer. As a result, now I have a stack of skeletons, and the battles take 30 seconds. I'm *growing* it again, but if the timer was 2 minutes, not only would I have lost the Necromancer and a bunch of weak guards, but I would also have a large timer.

The "+1 minute" option allows players to avoid spending timer on simple battles that are easily won but require a certain number of mandatory clicks.

If a battle is difficult, then time from the total bank should be spent on it. And players who spend less time on battles or do it faster should spend time on tasks that they consider more important.

+1.
I would also like to note that the time for the initial assessment of the position ("warm-up") should be sufficient (and it practically does not depend on the size of the map). That is why, in the timer for Medium maps, the Start time of 8 minutes seems too short to me...

P.S. Don't forget that the result of the poll (I anticipate that there will be one) should be a weighted average ;)

I don't know, the time spent on the initial setup doesn't take much time compared to the subsequent actions, and in general, the point of a skirmish game is quick gameplay, so increasing the timer there wouldn't be right. Actually, I'm increasingly leaning towards the idea that if we're going to increase the time, it should be the starting time, so the player can decide how to use it.

In general, you can also adjust the parameters starting from the total game time. For example, 5 hours for a game on a large map => timer: 150 min + 0 + 0. Then, fine-tune with the other two parameters if needed...