Debunking Asymmetry (aka one faction > n factions)

For me it is simple. Pregame RPS is bad. Anything you do should be scoutable and counterable.

Problem isn't blind choices. Problem is blind RPS. If you start the game and have several viable balanced options then it is fine but if it the outcome of the game is just decided by the starting race, build or option before the opponents have even scouted it i think that is bad.
In Starcraft the races are generally balanced to each other but the starting builds might determine the outcome of the game in an RPS manner which I'm not a fan of.
Also FOG of war can be mitigated by scouting. By scouting you can be aware of what the opponent is doing. However scouting isn't free so you have to trade knowing what the enemy does and expecting what the enemy will do.

But the point of having 1 faction is that we can increase the number of choices the players can make. Now we don't have to worry about balancing the factions against each other in wildly different circumstances and different maps because the players are not locked into 1 faction so we can focus on creating a diverse toolbox that can be used in many different ways to achieve victory.

In Starcraft the choice of faction is in general not a strategic choice. The factions are basically balanced to each other and the maps have a very strict formula so the design goal is that there shouldn't be any advantage to be had, by choosing a certain faction.
This is very different from SupCom:FA where some factions simply have better options. Like Aeon being better at amphibious maps while Seraphim generally have the best navy. I don't think this is a good thing as players can't chose faction freely if they want to play optimally.

If you go after Starcraft balance then it is harder to fix balance because trying to fix 1 matchup might imbalance the other matchups.
However if imbalances in some matchups are accepted then the game is also about choosing the right faction or character before the game starts. Some might say this is interesting pregame strategy like in DOTA. Personally I don't like it.

By limiting the game to one faction you doesn't necessarily decrease the number of choices the players can make. It actually makes it easier to keep several viable choices as you can balance the game without having to worry about several different matchups.

Suppose that Starcraft were designed differently.
Instead of Terran, Protoss and Zerg with six match ups between the three, you had six match ups, each between two (of a total 12) unique sub-factions.

TvT: Alpha Squadron vs. Sons of Korhal
TvZ: Umojan Protectorate vs. Jormangund Brood
PvP: Ara Tribe vs. Sargas Tribe
PvT: Auriga Tribe vs. Delta Squadron
ZvZ: Surtur Brood vs. Garm Brood
ZvP: Baelrog Brood vs. Furinax Tribe

Each sub-faction would be uniquely balanced for its match up. Thus the Alpha Squadron would have different stats and units compared to the Umojan Protectorate, and possibly even different stats from Sons of Korhal.

At that point, it's clear that each match is a perfect equivalent to '2 De Mayo', a self-contained self-balanced match-up of inherent symmetry. There is no pre-game (even if you pick a random unknown match, you'll know which faction you're playing as and thus which faction you're playing against the moment it starts) and there are no blind decisions. But how many of Keith's complaints about Starcraft as a whole would still apply?

And throw out any game that has more then 2 players....

Well for one, you can't change your faction mid-game. That's the most important difference.

You can't change hero either. You can have another hero(3 maximum) but you can't change them out for someone else so I think it is pretty similar to choosing faction as you are locked into your choice and with your first hero that is a blind choice.

Just an FYI, the link in the OP not only was flagged by my firefox for being unsafe, but Avast went full red alert and blocked a trojan from the website. Don't know if anyone's getting that, but I can't go to the site.

On topic, the subject of Asymmetry is a doozy. It's possible to balance without symmetry, but when you get games like this were all the units are the same, you have to wonder how symmetric, or asymmetric you want your game to be.

A unit can have percent ratios of armor, damage, and speed, and as long as the total percent ratio is the same, the other enemy doesn't have to be the same, but still be equal. Those numbers tend to come back to bite you if there's outside sources like distance to travel, area of effect, speed of projectile, speed of target. It's complicated.

I don't think Asymmetry is a bad thing, but I don't think PA is doing it wrong, either. The units are symmetrical, so you'll eventually have a balanced setup, but the players themselves are asymmetric. They're the ones that will make the units unbalanced. The players are the ones that make the unit groups unbalanced, play unbalanced, and win with that unbalance.