I've just started a game of this and while the perk roulette is a shock to the system I do get certain aspects of it. That said though there are some imbalances that drive me a little bit crazy. For example Grenadier and Infantry can both get Squadsight as a top level operative tier for 25 AP. It looks a bit uncomfortably like an error. They can't use Sniper Rifles and aren't really geared up for sitting at the back of the battlefield. Sure maybe they'll get a chance for a clutch 30% shot with a Cannon every now and then but that hardly feels worth even considering.

Then there's the stealth skills. Xcom 2 skills weren't designed in a vacuum and some of them don't really make sense on their own. I'm not going to take Shadowstrike if I can't take at least one skill to reenter stealth. In particular Phantom is just a bad skill on its own. Seeing these skills on their own really makes a character look like it was stitched together randomly rather than procedurally. Since that's actually how it works and is unlikely to change it feels like the skills need to be self sufficient. Synergies should be a bonus rather than a requirement to consider the skill at all.

Lastly there's Serial and Reaper. These skills are a bit gamewarping. It's an issue with Xcom 2 but soldiers with these skills are insanely powerful compared to soldiers without them. Getting a Sharpshooter with Fan Fire or a Ranger with Rapid Fire just plain sucks. If the goal is to de-emphasise soldier skills it might make more sense to remove these skills rather than rebalance around them.

I get the goal isn't perfect balance so you get attached to top tier soldiers without being reliant on them, but some of these outliers feel like they push beyond that just a bit far.