I wasn't misreading anything, I said 'just'. But you seem to have missed that.
I specifically explained why
just balancing to one type of player brings with it a multitude of problems. First and foremost: its a dumbass way to sample or get a feel for how a unit will perform in the majority of in-game circumstances. Also, no major RTS in the world is balanced just to best players of that game so I don't know what kind of drugs you're currently on but I'd not recommend doing them and posting on here at the same time.
Think about it logically: it would make the game almost unplayable for average players (who by far make up the 99% of the game's playerbase if it is succesful) if an RTS were balanced ONLY (emphasis here on ONLY) to the best players of that game. Players who can multitask and simultaneously perform hundreds of commands per minute. Players who practice day in and day out. That's not a realistic representation of the 99+% of people who will be playing the game so a unit that was very hard to use right, but great when used right, would not nearly be as effective as just one example. This is basic reasoning here.
So no, your point was deeply inaccurate.
Well on a more related note, I wanted to commend Mysthalin on this undertaking, it'd be amazing if a unit performance assessment was always done this thorough by both the public and the BT alike.
I agree with your commendation completely. It's this type of evidence/data based balancing that, in an ideal world, would be mandatory for balance changes in the mod instead of just "everyone on the team gets to voice their opinion regardless of their documentation of experience with said unit" as if it's a happy go lucky colony and nobody is ever biased. It's not wrong to require those who want to advocate for or against a change to a unit without somewhat controlling for basic bias and inexperience.
