Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
What specific points constitute the "correct direction of research"?
For me, it primarily consists of the following points:
1) Only the opinions of highly skilled players should be considered (i.e., the sample should include reports from the later stages of tournaments), or it should be a survey of opinions (even if private) of players who have demonstrated skill in the past.
2) For this specific question, the course of games on specific templates, under certain rules, should be studied separately for each template, with red rush allowed.
3) Specific games, specific game situations should be considered; no statistical studies should be used as arguments at all. Statistics can be a reason to investigate a question, but it should be investigated under a microscope with specific examples.
And I keep repeating – this is the path that Blizzard uses to balance its games. Their example is worth considering as a model.
Yes, they have Battle.Net, where they collect statistics on millions of games. And, according to their technical director, they collect all sorts of statistics, how many units and which ones are built, how the results of games depend on the units built, and they hope that this will help them someday, but when it comes to changing something in the balance, they carefully study the opinions of the best players in the world ranking and watch recordings of specific games. (!)