Nobody can look at patch notes or a handful of games and make meaningful observations about balance in all but the most extreme situations. It takes months and hundreds of games before an RTS metagame begins to settle down after a patch, and it's only then that you can really properly evaluate balance.
Agreed
But people don't want that
They would rather cry OP than learn to adapt and want patches every month
Well you've also repeatedly said that only "High Level" players are worth looking at for balance because only they have the skill level to make it meaningful
Now you come along saying that a small group of players won't generate enough games to be meaningful.
it's public knowledge http://steamcommunity.com/groups/relicbalancebeta and yes members have been abused via PM on this forum or via other mediums and there's nothing they can do about it. Relic themselves won't defend them either.
So, maybe we might concentrate some more on this aspect, rather than just blame Relic? Is it prudent to reduce the test group to such a small segment? How often did they play the test game? What was their average skill set? Did they regularly test the new maps? Or were they content to pick up the badge and do little in return?
The one consistent behaviour we have got from ex-Alpha group members is that they weren't listened to - so everything remains Relic's fault.
Of course we don't have Relic's side of that story...