The premise of this has basically been wether or not the ai is a reasonable tool in assessing balance. In it's current state, it most definitely is not. Requiring 3+ ais to provide any semblance of challenge is actually a negative against using the ai as a balancing point in my opinion.And guys, how is it possible that you are still fighting on this? Both of you know what the other is really saying, and you just keep going at it. Feels like I am on a blog with a bunch of damn lawyers that just like arguing.