New proxye

hi!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DISCLAIMER: The information provided here will make little sense if the reader has not been thoroughly following the blue posts of David Kim/ Blizz' development right from the start of SC2
For these readers, this will feel weird, as if working with only half the infomation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am 44 yrs old...i grew up with SC:BW.
followed sc2 from the first teaser trailers, through all teaser videos all the way up to release and today ...
Why is SC:BW'\s balance >>> SC2 ?
SIMPLE - the underlying theory behind SC:BW is sound, solid...whereas the underlying theory behind SC2 is a sham.
In any intelectual competition - chess, cards, video-games etc. - one can judge the skill of competitors only if the playing field is leveled...or, at least, as leveled as it can be!
SC:BW tried as much as it can, to provide a playing field that is as leveled as it can be...
In stark contrast, SC2 did the opposite as will be proven below...
Do take note that that, at times, in intellectual games (chess, video-games etc), sometimes one side (typically the master player) plays at a handicap wheres the opponent starts off with a significant advantage, but this is only done for show, not for actual ratings!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those that grew up with SC:BW, know that unless there was a big gap between the skill of opposing players, or someone cheessed while the other player messed up really bad, there was no way to easily take out the opponent!
There was no magic a-move solution.
SC:BW had what is known as "the orthodox gameplay solution" - in a nutshell, if both sides are at similar skill level and are keeping up (i.e. not doing stupid, risky stuff like tech rush, fast expo etc), then there is no easy way to take out someone...regardless of which race you or the enemy, is playing!
Your armies will meet in combat and decimate each other in a very even manner...
Sure, a small number of units may survive, but they will pose no threat to the other side.
This was due to authentic, real, horizontal symmetry between unit tiers - basicly, this meant that no one has any significant advantage during early, middle or late game**, because unit tiers were evenly (or very close to evenly) matched.
Zerg's tiers were very close to Terrans and Protoss's... barring 5 pools in team games, it was impossible to actually rush someone.Even 5-pools were rare, because SCVs were actually able to deal with 5-zerglins easily. Only very low tier, panicking players would lose to a 5-pool or proxyes....
So, in BW, we had actual balance (or as close as possible to it), between races.
There was no "gun-to-the-head" play ("win in 10 min or die").
So...we had true freedom of choice - ...play normally...play cheesy ...play risky....dunno...your actualy, real choice!No forced outcomes! This is soo important...
Forced outcomes (forced ways to act) are INCOMPATIBLE with pvp (player v player competitions), because freedom of choice should be the norm!The only way to achieve it, is to have true horizontal balance between opposing sides!
Now, onto SC2 ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early stages of SC2 (soon after release), a blue communication published stated that the intended development idea was "asymetrical balance".
I must confess - i had a BSD (blue screen of death) moment - "WTF...what is this oxymoron ?"
Reading that half page communique, it was stated that the intention of the developer was to make SC "exciting to watch" (a key phrase which will be very common in Blizz's public communiques).
Right off the bat, this sent alarm signals in my mind...but i kept reading through.
In essence, this changes the horizont balance into a time-based vertical version. (imagine a vertical column of time).
In a nutshell, each eace had its own timeframe to shine, after which, another one would take over.
Something like... Race 1 has from start to 5 min, race 2 has from 5 min to 10 min and race 3 from 10 min onwards...
The ideea was that the starting time bonus would translate into equivalent positions later on, thus, making everything even later on, as the game progressed.
Because the aim of David Kim was to make SC2 "exciting to watch" (remember that key phrase), the game was designed not arround evenly matched tiers...but arround flashy death and destruction.
Those who saw that teaser trailer with the Collosi and the banelings spelling GG at the end, will know what i am talking about...
Problem is ...flashy came at a heavy cost - massive tier and structural imbalances between races.
Most RTSs that tried to be PVPable, followed several (unofficial/ unwritten) rules, rules common to most RTSs (like Eath 2150, Warcraft 3, Red Alert, Ground Control etc):Rule 1) No AOE units too soon (for obvious reasons)
Rule 2) If there is base building, no easy, risk-free expansions too soon. Also, unit production must be correlated between races (if more than one).
Rule 3) No siege-type damage too soon (same...for obvious reasons..you dont want bulding killing too soon).
Rule 4) Units that are powerful must be counter-balanced somehow...cost, time to make, slow to move etc. in relation to their power.
Rule 5) Similarly sized armies that meet in combat and can attack each other, should decimate each other ... (the orthodox gameplay theory).
SC2 violates pretty much all of the above:
Rule 1) baneling ... available basicly righ-off the bat, with no counter at the time it is made
This had the consequence of FORCING both T and P to base-close. It also FORCED a certain type of map design (the "intestine" type of map ... long, narrow corridors with small openings for base entrance at the end).
All SC2 tournament map are "intestine" maps ...not one of them has wide spaces with wide openings... zerg would win all the time, 6 min in!
SC2 also breaks rule 3 at the same time as rule 1 ... banelings do siege damage too, they wreck buildings right off the bat, not just light units.
Rule 2) SC2 also violates rule 2... because David Kim has a massive hard on for Z (or got humiliated by some T player in his yourh...dunno), he essentialy gave Zerg a free expansion early on because...err...Zerg /shrugs
Zerg never had a free expansion in Player v Player in Brood War ... and for the right reasons! No one has this! You wanted quick expo ?! Then risk your neck to get it, as it should be!
Also, the queen injection fi woefully OP as f*ck, because less than 6 min in, it allows Zerg to obscenely outproduce both P and T, with no direct counter. This should not have been allowed in player v player.
Im BW, zerg units were noticably weaker than either T or P, with good reason - it made up for the fact each Hatch had 3x the production of any Terran/ Protoss facility.
Not so in SC2 - as an example, soon after SC2 release, in 2010, patch 1.1.2, Roaches received a huge buff +1 range. This is huge, because with +1 range, this leads to massively increased efficiency and dps from the mass-produced, big-health unit. Now, the first 2 lines can attack at same time, not just one.
Not only this, but David Kim savagely hit Terran even more, based off...only 1 person (Taeja), and a couple of Tournament fights!
Absolutely vital stuff was removed or made irrelevant from Terran:- point defense drone (replaced with the useless defense matrix)
- snipe (the forums were filled to the brim, with very good rework suggestions...but all were ignored by the zerg-loving David Kim)- turret (now useless, disappears within seconds).
- reapers are no longer viable harass units (their light dmg got removed...instead, they now have useless bombs that...err...push units away lol)
All of this, lead to the massive diminishing rates of T in both ladders and tournaments.
The fact Terran is the hardest to play is no accident - T still plays largely like it did back in BW...with both Protoss and Zerg being given, shiny new, imbalanced toys.
The Protoss recall thing? It appeared during LOTV (2017), because even the clueless David Kim noticed that protoss were getting hammered by the much more mobile Zerg ..during their own expansion LOL !
-------------
CONCLUSIONS:
1) You cannot judge the skill of competing players in an intellectual competition (chess, poker, games etc), if the playing field isnt as leveled as possible (and SC2 is actively against the playing field being leveled).
In SC2, no one (but the most hyppocrite of Zerg & David Kim's fan boys) can deny Terren is by far, the hardes to play, with the most backward, old tech ...while both Zerg and Protoss have imbalanced, new things to bring to the table.
2) The ONLY way to have a playing field that is as leveled as possible, is to think like SC:BW did - horizontal simmetry between unit tiers
3) Only by following (as close as possible) the above unwritten/ unofficial rules for RTSs, can any RTS (SC included!) can have a hope to be considered proper Player v Player !
4) Forcing a certain kind of acting (forced closed bases for both T and P vs Z) is more evidence of borked design.
This leads to a FORCED map design - unlike SC:BW, you cannot have varied maps (open/ big entries etc), because Zerg wins automatically.
You are FORCED to use "intestine" style of maps - all tournament maps are this type of map. There is not one single wide entry/ wide spaces map in SC, used in tournaments!
Even the ladders are all tiny, tight spaces with small openings at the end (same "intestine" design).
5) Tournament playstile is actually irrelevantThis claim may sound outrageous... but it is actually , true.
Watch 10 - 15- 20 tournament matches vs ladder matches.
The difference is astounding - on ladder, Zerg players are total savages, going full on baneling busts with devastating results...either winning outright or in a short while (Terran cant recover from losing that many buildings early on, unless zerg player is an absolute moron).
In sharp contrast, Zerg tournament players are...far more conservative! They stay in bases, do little busts ... heck, most of the time, they dont even try to early on, anihilate their T or P opponent!
Thats because unlike a ladder player, a Tournament player fears he/she risks losing lots of $$$ if there is even a tiny hint at losing the match. Delaying risk seems, in this regard, a wiser decision.
In my endeavour implicating money, the number 1 issue is maximizing profit, and minimizing risks. Like any other business...
--------------------
Also, all responses, on all forums, against the bane bust, require the zerg player to mess up hugely
A zerg that actually pays attn, doesnt mess up cannot be stopped or actually defeated, if he/she is on same skill par with the Terran/ Protoss (they may struggle vs Protoss abit more...)
Also, other answers say "IF both players play a macro..." ... well, why should they (zergs) do that ?!
In Masters/ Tournaments, there is that fear of risk at start ...so they are more likely NOT to bane bust.
Now, i ll return to Brood War...at least, if i lose in BW, its because of skills, not because David Kim had a hard on against Terran.
----------------
**NOTE: True, SC:BW wasnt ideal either...then again, neither is chess!
But unlike SC2, SC:BW tried it best to achieve it!
And the differences were tiny, only to be seen in very late games ...
​
​

Am I dumb for buying boxes?
Started playing magic on arena.
Few years went by and I started playing commander on spelltable with proxyes.
A few more months after, in an attempt to get my gf to the game and becayse it was cheap af I bougth a theros beyond death booster box.
We went trougth it together over the course of a day in our work and it was a blast. She loved cracking packs, looking at the art and see me jump everytime we got a good card.
We got lucky and ended getting every single expensive card other than kroxa and nyxbloom ancient, making a "profit", but I know that as lucky.
I then made some decks revolving arround the signpost uncommon of each color combination for us to play.
Finally, she understood how magic is amazing while playing with her selesnya auras against my dimir escape/rakdos sacrifice and BW flyers.
We them got two more friends onto the game and played some 4 person games using those 40 cards decks. We had a blast, even tho they are still getting the hang of the game.
My GF and I then decided to use some spare cash we had to buy two more boxes, one from kaldheim and one from zendikar.
When commenting this with some of the guys I play commander with everyone called me stupid because "with that money I could've bougth all 4 baldur precons, made 4 budget commander decks, or a bunch of pauper decks"
This got me thinking. Did I made a stupid decision? Are boxes always a bad deal when not drafting?
And no, I dont thing I can use the new boxes to draft, since my gf and our friends are still too new to the game to understand how to properly draft.
The best I could do is to make a bunch of sealed decks for everyone, or use all packs and build thematic decks, as I did before

I started playing magic when zendikar came out with arena and it became my new favorite hobbie.
One thing leads to another and after watching game knights I felt in love with the commander experience. Thing is, I live in a town with 10000 habitants, no game shop and no magic community. Here in Brazil magic is also very expensive, and even a precon is ~250 reais, wich is more than I pay for my monthly internet, light and water bills.
So, there is a way that I can play online with proxyes or digital cards?
If so, can you please explain to me how, like you would to a 5 year old? I'm not a very smart guy lol