Embarrasing. Ha that's funny what's embarrising is your argument.Sigh. Fine, let's go through this.Its funny that you've missed the point of this thread read titleQuote:Very nice deflection of what I said, very nice.
Anyways, those tests cannot be classified as evidence, as there are far too many things done incorrectly. Allow me to explain.
First, there was no micro performed, by either side. If you're parking AA right under air units, you're doing it wrong. Another example of this, would be Wraiths VS AV. If I'm fighting AV with Wraiths, and my opponent stands in the Plasma from Plasma Mortar, the Wraiths will win. Are Wraiths also OP? I think not.
Secondly, a lot of the tests had extremely unrealistic army comps. If I'm fighting mass air, why would I have Rangers, Choppers, Locust, etc.? That makes zero sense. It takes a looooooong time to build up mass air, so there is no reason to have the incorrect army comp. the first test, where Reavers/Grunts were used was the only accurate representation of what kind of army comp should be used against mass air. Similarly, if I'm fighting mass Warthogs, why would I build Snipers?
Lastly, no abilities were used. This kind of goes along with micro, but oh well. In some of the tests, the army with AA had support units, but decided not to use them. Engineer Shields and Shroud cloaking would have changed the outcome of those interactions immensely.
Anyways, I don't care to argue this back and forth. It's tiring and it's getting us no where.
If you want to provide actual evidence, I offer you again to play against me, and we can share the gameplay with others to display how this works out in a real game. If you're not willing to do that, for whatever reason, I hope you can find some better evidence. Because that was embarrassing.
Air is still viable as a single unit balance issue