• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 14:55
CET 20:55
KST 04:55
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
ByuL: The Forgotten Master of ZvT29Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book19Clem wins HomeStory Cup 289HomeStory Cup 28 - Info & Preview13Rongyi Cup S3 - Preview & Info8
Community News
Team Liquid Map Contest - Preparation Notice2Weekly Cups (Feb 23-Mar 1): herO doubles, 2v2 bonanza1Weekly Cups (Feb 16-22): MaxPax doubles0Weekly Cups (Feb 9-15): herO doubles up2ACS replaced by "ASL Season Open" - Starts 21/0258
StarCraft 2
General
Team Liquid Map Contest - Preparation Notice How do you think the 5.0.15 balance patch (Oct 2025) for StarCraft II has affected the game? ByuL: The Forgotten Master of ZvT Nexon's StarCraft game could be FPS, led by UMS maker Weekly Cups (Feb 23-Mar 1): herO doubles, 2v2 bonanza
Tourneys
PIG STY FESTIVAL 7.0! (19 Feb - 1 Mar) RSL Season 4 announced for March-April Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SEL Doubles (SC Evo Bimonthly) WardiTV Team League Season 10
Strategy
Custom Maps
Publishing has been re-enabled! [Feb 24th 2026] Map Editor closed ?
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 515 Together Forever Mutation # 514 Ulnar New Year Mutation # 513 Attrition Warfare
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion It's March 3rd CasterMuse Youtube Recent recommended BW games
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues BWCL Season 64 Announcement The Casual Games of the Week Thread [LIVE] [S:21] ASL Season Open Day 1
Strategy
Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2 Fighting Spirit mining rates Simple Questions, Simple Answers Zealot bombing is no longer popular?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread Diablo 2 thread Path of Exile
Dota 2
The Story of Wings Gaming Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread UK Politics Mega-thread NASA and the Private Sector
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TL MMA Pick'em Pool 2013
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Laptop capable of using Photoshop Lightroom?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Just Watchers: Why Some Only…
TrAiDoS
Unintentional protectionism…
Uldridge
ASL S21 English Commentary…
namkraft
Life Update and thoughts.
FuDDx
How do archons sleep?
8882
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2451 users

Understanding StarCraft: Map Control - Page 2

Blogs > Chef
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 All
palanq
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
United States761 Posts
January 11 2011 06:41 GMT
#21
nice read, thanks.
time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
wherebugsgo
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Japan10647 Posts
January 11 2011 07:36 GMT
#22
On January 11 2011 15:36 emperorchampion wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2011 15:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
On January 11 2011 14:43 emperorchampion wrote:
On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:
On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?

It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.


wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map?


Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up!

Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p

edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter.

btw, great blog Chef


I disagree, SC2 currently is not in a state where "map control" means anything.

The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.

In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.

This is true even for the larger maps like Shakuras because of the map structure.

In short, yes, this is right now a concept that is more or less useless in SC2. The closest to "map control" one can get is controling the watch towers, but that's more vision than "control" anyway.


Assuming you agree with Chef's argument here:
Show nested quote +
Let's think of another example. You've just killed a Zerg army. You're really happy about it, and you think 'well I killed his army, so what's stopping me from killing his expo LOL.' You're right, you should go make a move on his expo. But the logic of this move is not to kill his expo. The logic of this move is to force Zerg to spend a lot of money building sunkens and army. If you can kill it anyway, that's great, but it you can't, it will be the critical failure in your game. Let's say Zerg didn't lose his army, and responded correctly. He pulled back and Protoss rightfully realised he has map control. So Protoss moves out to threaten the Zerg expo, and expands himself in the mean time, because what the hell is Zerg gonna do about it while he has map control. But then Protoss loses all or most of his army attacking the Zerg expo in a misjudgement of army size. The reason this is a critical failure is because he has given up the map control he just gained. Zerg can then respond by playing the move Protoss just did, in other words, expanding while threatening the expo Protoss doesn't have an army to defend.


Your points here:
Show nested quote +
The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.

In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.


Are in direct contradiction. "Vision" is an illusion of map control, map control was defined (I agree with this definition btw) basically as "whoever has the ability to control the map, ie. kill the opposing army". If a Terran player all-ins, they, by definition, have map control because of a more powerful army, therefore I don't understand your argument here- as obviously in this case Zerg was not playing properly (ignoring any apparent, or real balance issues). Warp-ins contribute to map control, but not by extending it- but by reinforcing existing spots of control. I don't really understand your argument here. I think the notion of "map control" is a varying one, ie. a player can have map control, but that doesn't mean that they control every area of the map (unless of course, they have complete map control, via an intense contain or something of the like)- I think this is where you got confused here. The Protoss player won't magically have a more powerful army, but can reinforce it quicker, for whatever it's worth.

I honestly cannot imagine how you can say map control is useless in SC2. In games on Steppes of War, map control is extremely important. Any amount of tanks in the middle ground gives almost immediate control of the entire map to a Terran player, allowing him to freely move about behind the contain. Now, that said, I don't endorse Steppes as a map- and I think the whole map pool is pretty much garbage to be honest. But, you have to work with what is presented, and to say that map control isn't important- or non-existent even- is flat out wrong. Obviously there is a lot of evolution in SC2 still, and to endorse notions such as that hampers the process.

Please look into your arguments more, instead of just posting "what you feel to be true".


Again, I disagree.

Look at any of the P matchups in SC2. 4 gate is viable in all matchups, and it's the most common in PvP. The winning player never wins because of map control, it's just the player who executes his build better. In PvP the most important part is getting a proxy pylon up and denying your opponent's proxy, not an expansion, not control of possible mining bases, not control of different avenues of movement, and certainly not control of any significant portion of the map.

As for your assertion that a Terran player who all-ins has map control, no, I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that a Zerg player can do to prevent a Terran player from all-inning with all his SCVs after Stim finishes. Only impeccable micro will save the Zerg, and it's because the maps are too small. In BW map control is important here because if a Terran all-ins, the Zerg loses an expo if he's unaware and does not have map awareness or at least some map control. If the Zerg does have map control, an all-in move will fail because the Zerg player has enough time to react.

The only map currently that rewards players for good map control in SC2 is Shakuras. All-ins very rarely work against good Zerg players who value map control here because it actually means something, as opposed to any of the other maps in the pool.

As for Steppes, I disagree with you again. You can literally do anything on that map and win. Map control is moot, all you need to know is a good timing attack. I have never seen a GSL game on that map go beyond 1 base vs 2 base, and almost always the player with the first attack wins. That's not due to superior map control, it's due to the map being so small it only rewards aggression.

The exception was last night, when a poorly executed 4 gate lost to Marineking's marine+tank build. The Toss player should have won but he microed poorly. However, there was no map control to speak of in that game.

Compare all these situations to brood war. The maps are big enough that games routinely go to 3+ bases and we see fights in different areas of the map simultaneously. Greedy players are punished for taking expos when they don't have map control. Spheres of influence are important because it takes time to shift units from one part of the map to another. Expansion trades are common because it's too risky to attempt to defend something in a part of the map you have little control over, where it would be more beneficial instead to simultaneously sabotage your opponent in an area where he is weak.

None of this happens in SC2 right now. None of the maps are big enough for it, and the game mechanics don't help. ZvT is the only matchup where we sometimes see flashes of BW-like map control, like Clide vs Leenock on Shakuras. Clide ultimately lost because he couldn't keep up with Leenock's ability to simultaneously defend his own expansions while denying Clide's own. Leenock had total map control at certain points, despite being threatened by a split down the middle. It was beautiful to watch, unlike most of the 1basing that happens, simply because it actually showcased map control in SC2.



Crazyeyes
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
Canada1342 Posts
January 11 2011 08:01 GMT
#23
That was a very good read. It makes me sad that SC2 is so far off from where BW is (was?).

Going to go watch some BW.
WeeEEeeEEEeeEEEeeeEEee!!
Comeh
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States18919 Posts
January 11 2011 08:12 GMT
#24
Great read Chef - map control of course is one of the most difficult to apply skills in the game (when you realize you can take it and when you realize you should back off, of course) While it replays its very observable, its hard to have the sense of when map control should exchange between players, and when its appropriate to push and whatnot (unless, of course, you are blindly following a korean build, which you might get consistently lucky if you time it well)
ヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノDELETE ICEFROGヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(
Advocado
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Denmark994 Posts
January 12 2011 02:19 GMT
#25
I'm sorry, I should have noticed that the topic was mainly aimed towards Brood War and not SC2.

Dis regard what I have said.
http://www.twitch.tv/advocadosc2
Funnytoss
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
Taiwan1471 Posts
January 12 2011 02:40 GMT
#26
On January 12 2011 11:19 Advocado wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have noticed that the topic was mainly aimed towards Brood War and not SC2.

Dis regard what I have said.


It's not that the topic of map control is inherently irrelevant to SC2 - it's just that overall, SC2 isn't at the level *yet* where it matters like it did in BW. And yes, I would argue that because of things like PF, Warpgates, and small maps, map control isn't as important right now in SC2, but that's not necessarily set in stone.

Hopefully we'll see SC2 develop into a game where this topic will be quite relevant
AIV_Funnytoss and sGs.Funnytoss on iCCup
Storm[PT]
Profile Joined March 2010
120 Posts
January 12 2011 03:08 GMT
#27
Very insightful. It has been enlightening to read this.
Toss ftw; For the Revolutionist!
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
January 12 2011 03:54 GMT
#28
On January 11 2011 16:36 wherebugsgo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2011 15:36 emperorchampion wrote:
On January 11 2011 15:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
On January 11 2011 14:43 emperorchampion wrote:
On January 11 2011 11:17 ToFu. wrote:
On January 11 2011 11:14 Advocado wrote:
Still speaking of map control, don't you think that Planetary Fortress are almost harmful to the strategic part of map control? I know it will become less of a problem next patch with scv's becoming a higher threat when repairing, but shouldn't bunkers be more of the main defensive strategy?

It's not even that planetary fortress are that good, it's just that even you finish off a terran force you can't go kill that PF cause it absolutely demolishes ground forces with siege tank like damage and massive splash.


wat is a planetary fortress? is this some custom map?


Don't be a fool, this is a STARCRAFT site- which includes both games. Obviously the same principles apply throughout both games, and all RTSs for that matter. Manner up!

Advocado, I'm not totally sure what you mean, but I will do the best to explain what I think (please comment, because I am not that familiar with SC2). A strategic decision has to be made, based on favoring resources vs safety (OC vs PF). Obviously, main bases and natural expansions are made into OC, I don't think I need to explain why. However, when taking thirds and onwards, often PFs are made. I think this is mostly convention, and I'm sure as the game evolves OCs may become more popular (OCs are inherently "better", as you gain additional resources, which can be used to make additional units and attack or defend- instead of just defense). So, in this regard the game isn't "dumbed down" (in my opinion). I'm not sure if it makes it easier either, because it is a huge disadvantage to make a PF- this may be why a lot of Terrans find themselves out-macroed in lategame TvZ. I guess what I'm getting at is that you may actually be giving up map control my making a PF, because you have less army (you gain greater control over a small area, in sacrifice for lesser control over the whole map). Again, this is all theory, and I hope someone more qualified will make better post :p

edit: What's with all the fucking high-handed bw players in this thread?! Get a grip yo~ Also, to whoever said this has nothing to do with SC2 is very, very misinformed. This has everything to do with SC2, and every other RTS for that matter.

btw, great blog Chef


I disagree, SC2 currently is not in a state where "map control" means anything.

The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.

In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.

This is true even for the larger maps like Shakuras because of the map structure.

In short, yes, this is right now a concept that is more or less useless in SC2. The closest to "map control" one can get is controling the watch towers, but that's more vision than "control" anyway.


Assuming you agree with Chef's argument here:
Let's think of another example. You've just killed a Zerg army. You're really happy about it, and you think 'well I killed his army, so what's stopping me from killing his expo LOL.' You're right, you should go make a move on his expo. But the logic of this move is not to kill his expo. The logic of this move is to force Zerg to spend a lot of money building sunkens and army. If you can kill it anyway, that's great, but it you can't, it will be the critical failure in your game. Let's say Zerg didn't lose his army, and responded correctly. He pulled back and Protoss rightfully realised he has map control. So Protoss moves out to threaten the Zerg expo, and expands himself in the mean time, because what the hell is Zerg gonna do about it while he has map control. But then Protoss loses all or most of his army attacking the Zerg expo in a misjudgement of army size. The reason this is a critical failure is because he has given up the map control he just gained. Zerg can then respond by playing the move Protoss just did, in other words, expanding while threatening the expo Protoss doesn't have an army to defend.


Your points here:
The maps are too small, and the game is dominated by 1 and 2 base all-ins. There is very little notion of map control outside the Z matchups because Protoss players ignore map size with warp-ins and no top Terrans ATM really do much other than 2 base plays.

In TvZ, for example, it's very possible for a Zerg player in SC2 to have complete map awareness, better income, better production, etc, but get destroyed by a random all-in simply because the map is too small.


Are in direct contradiction. "Vision" is an illusion of map control, map control was defined (I agree with this definition btw) basically as "whoever has the ability to control the map, ie. kill the opposing army". If a Terran player all-ins, they, by definition, have map control because of a more powerful army, therefore I don't understand your argument here- as obviously in this case Zerg was not playing properly (ignoring any apparent, or real balance issues). Warp-ins contribute to map control, but not by extending it- but by reinforcing existing spots of control. I don't really understand your argument here. I think the notion of "map control" is a varying one, ie. a player can have map control, but that doesn't mean that they control every area of the map (unless of course, they have complete map control, via an intense contain or something of the like)- I think this is where you got confused here. The Protoss player won't magically have a more powerful army, but can reinforce it quicker, for whatever it's worth.

I honestly cannot imagine how you can say map control is useless in SC2. In games on Steppes of War, map control is extremely important. Any amount of tanks in the middle ground gives almost immediate control of the entire map to a Terran player, allowing him to freely move about behind the contain. Now, that said, I don't endorse Steppes as a map- and I think the whole map pool is pretty much garbage to be honest. But, you have to work with what is presented, and to say that map control isn't important- or non-existent even- is flat out wrong. Obviously there is a lot of evolution in SC2 still, and to endorse notions such as that hampers the process.

Please look into your arguments more, instead of just posting "what you feel to be true".


+ Show Spoiler +
Again, I disagree.

Look at any of the P matchups in SC2. 4 gate is viable in all matchups, and it's the most common in PvP. The winning player never wins because of map control, it's just the player who executes his build better. In PvP the most important part is getting a proxy pylon up and denying your opponent's proxy, not an expansion, not control of possible mining bases, not control of different avenues of movement, and certainly not control of any significant portion of the map.

As for your assertion that a Terran player who all-ins has map control, no, I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that a Zerg player can do to prevent a Terran player from all-inning with all his SCVs after Stim finishes. Only impeccable micro will save the Zerg, and it's because the maps are too small. In BW map control is important here because if a Terran all-ins, the Zerg loses an expo if he's unaware and does not have map awareness or at least some map control. If the Zerg does have map control, an all-in move will fail because the Zerg player has enough time to react.

The only map currently that rewards players for good map control in SC2 is Shakuras. All-ins very rarely work against good Zerg players who value map control here because it actually means something, as opposed to any of the other maps in the pool.

As for Steppes, I disagree with you again. You can literally do anything on that map and win. Map control is moot, all you need to know is a good timing attack. I have never seen a GSL game on that map go beyond 1 base vs 2 base, and almost always the player with the first attack wins. That's not due to superior map control, it's due to the map being so small it only rewards aggression.

The exception was last night, when a poorly executed 4 gate lost to Marineking's marine+tank build. The Toss player should have won but he microed poorly. However, there was no map control to speak of in that game.

Compare all these situations to brood war. The maps are big enough that games routinely go to 3+ bases and we see fights in different areas of the map simultaneously. Greedy players are punished for taking expos when they don't have map control. Spheres of influence are important because it takes time to shift units from one part of the map to another. Expansion trades are common because it's too risky to attempt to defend something in a part of the map you have little control over, where it would be more beneficial instead to simultaneously sabotage your opponent in an area where he is weak.

None of this happens in SC2 right now. None of the maps are big enough for it, and the game mechanics don't help. ZvT is the only matchup where we sometimes see flashes of BW-like map control, like Clide vs Leenock on Shakuras. Clide ultimately lost because he couldn't keep up with Leenock's ability to simultaneously defend his own expansions while denying Clide's own. Leenock had total map control at certain points, despite being threatened by a split down the middle. It was beautiful to watch, unlike most of the 1basing that happens, simply because it actually showcased map control in SC2.



Ok, I see your point now. I'm not throughly convinced that map-control is mostly useless, but whatever. I'm curious on how you think SC2 will develop in the future. Do you think the new GSL maps will create more dynamic game play, or is it more of an issue with the game it self? Personally, I'm not really sure how it will play out- some of the maps seem to encourage expanding and longer games, but I don't know if that will stop these powerful all-ins.
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
xarthaz
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
1704 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-01-12 12:16:24
January 12 2011 12:08 GMT
#29
On January 11 2011 10:58 Chef wrote:
Probably a more insightful example of mapcontrol than anything I wrote up there occurs in low level TvZs all the time. Terran has a big army that can beat Zergs army directly. Terran thinks 'ok, time to mess with the Zerg' and he attacks a fringe expo. Zerg counters his main and does way more damage than losing his one expo cost him. This is Terran thinking he has map control, but he's actually giving his map control up by putting his army out of position. Zerg just counters and expos somewhere else, and it's a really strong move because of this. Of course, if Terran can defend his base and attack at the same time, then that is truer, or at least stronger map control.

This is a great example of how real game map control is much more complex than the binary model of either one player or the other having it.

You see, the unit/ball movement speeds, or reaction speeds are what define map control in game, and because of their large variance, map control in real game is a very complex nonlinear system. IE the crackling raids/doom drops that zerg can do in late game even if not having direct army vs army map control, purely because of the insane movement speed of cracklings/ultras or hidden large number of overlords.

In fact, utilizing the binary model of map control is the reason why many zergs lose, even at pro level. They fail to understand that despite not having ability to take on enemy army, because of insane damage and speed of cracklings/positional control of lurker defiler, they can get around it because of racial advantage. Look at the latest game of JD vs Baby for example of this. JD was almost dead, baby couldve crushed his army in a head on battle, but utilizing position control of lurker swarm(and other godly multitasking of the few units he had) and slow reaction due to slow movement of m&m ball, he could deny baby's nat from mining and come back into the game
Aah thats the stuff..
djcube
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States985 Posts
January 12 2011 13:53 GMT
#30
I love this topic because bw TvZ is such an awesome match up. I think the example you gave of lower level TvZ is just more about the natural shifts in flow of standard bio TvZ, though. I'm sure everyone knows this but, zerg intially has map control because bare marines generally can't do anything vs speedlings. Then terran somewhat gains map control once academy tech is out (barring any kind of speedling backstab threat). Then map control shifts back to zerg when mutas are out, depending on terran's build. I mean, terran should at some point gain map control again during the muta harass (before lurkers are out) and pressure or deny zerg's third and I wouldn't necessarily say they're giving up map control by doing so. It's just a window of time in which the terran has the advantage that he is making use of. I guess the issue is that "lower level" terrans don't think of the possibility of a main counter and don't prepare a well enough defense. And zerg still will not have complete map control at this point b/c terran will have MM still roaming around the map.
kiero
Profile Joined May 2007
Canada136 Posts
January 15 2011 19:35 GMT
#31
Very well thought out and well written. Yet the concept is amazingly hard to apply, and I'm not sure even the pros know how to word it like this. This should be in liquidpedia somewhere.
agarangu
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Chile274 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-25 03:36:54
February 25 2011 03:36 GMT
#32
OMG Awesome!!! This blog is a light to the complete darkness of my noobie existence.
Thanks a lot!
What's a quote anyway?
~ava
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Canada379 Posts
February 25 2011 15:56 GMT
#33
I enjoyed the article, I don't think it was too low-level. The explanations were solid.
Prev 1 2 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 5m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 613
elazer 190
UpATreeSC 91
ForJumy 32
JuggernautJason24
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 20924
Sea 20476
Shuttle 892
Counter-Strike
fl0m3628
pashabiceps3359
adren_tv36
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu313
Other Games
tarik_tv15700
Grubby4006
FrodaN1253
Beastyqt741
ceh9548
B2W.Neo541
C9.Mang0148
KnowMe79
Dewaltoss73
Trikslyr62
Hui .57
Mew2King27
shahzam8
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV221
Counter-Strike
PGL73
StarCraft 2
angryscii 28
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Reevou 4
• intothetv
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• 80smullet 24
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota296
• Noizen58
League of Legends
• Nemesis3215
• TFBlade1187
Other Games
• imaqtpie1030
• WagamamaTV350
• Shiphtur243
Upcoming Events
PiGosaur Cup
5h 5m
Replay Cast
13h 5m
Replay Cast
1d 4h
The PondCast
1d 14h
KCM Race Survival
1d 14h
WardiTV Winter Champion…
1d 16h
Replay Cast
2 days
Ultimate Battle
2 days
Light vs ZerO
WardiTV Winter Champion…
2 days
Classic vs Nicoract
herO vs YoungYakov
ByuN vs Gerald
Clem vs Krystianer
Replay Cast
3 days
[ Show More ]
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
WardiTV Winter Champion…
3 days
MaxPax vs Spirit
Bunny vs Rogue
Cure vs SHIN
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
WardiTV Winter Champion…
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Monday Night Weeklies
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-03-02
PiG Sty Festival 7.0
Underdog Cup #3

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 1
Jeongseon Sooper Cup
Spring Cup 2026
WardiTV Winter 2026
Nations Cup 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Stage 1&2
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual
eXTREMESLAND 2025

Upcoming

ASL Season 21: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 21: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 21
Acropolis #4 - TS6
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
CSLAN 4
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
RSL Revival: Season 4
NationLESS Cup
Asian Champions League 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
PGL Astana 2026
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
CCT Season 3 Global Finals
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Finals
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.