• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:07
CEST 04:07
KST 11:07
  • 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
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall5HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL39Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?12FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event16Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster14Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? StarCraft Mass Recall: SC1 campaigns on SC2 thread How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster
Tourneys
$5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event HomeStory Cup 27 (June 27-29) WardiTV Mondays SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL Help: rep cant save BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall Where did Hovz go?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread [BSL20] ProLeague LB Final - Saturday 20:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Trading/Investing Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
Game Sound vs. Music: The Im…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 481 users

Ideal Mining thoughts.

Forum Index > BW General
Post a Reply
1 2 Next All
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4198 Posts
March 22 2009 04:40 GMT
#1
Okay, because of the 50 character max in the title, I cannot say exactly what I want to say in the title alone.

Hello. This is my first post on this forum.

I bought Starcraft back in 98, but I have recently started playing again. I have noticed dramatic increases in my decision-making and APM since I started about two months ago. I'm not a pro, by any means (currently a D on ICCUP, with a little over 50% win ratio, half-way to D+, and my B.Net stats are similar), but I do enjoy playing Starcraft.

One thing that bugged me was trying to figure out how many SCVs to use (I play Terran) for their maximum return on investment. If I was only concerned with efficiency, I would use only 1 per mineral patch, and if I was only concerned on the speed of mining, I would use 3+ per patch (maybe more).

I wanted to determine what the best rate mining was for the minimum input. For this, I needed to run a few trials.

I tested this on a number of different maps, with a variety of numbers of SCVs. I tested with 1.0, 1.3, 1.6, 1.9, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, and 3.1 scvs per patch.

The results I obtained were interesting. They were different than I expected, which is why I wanted to share this.

1.0 scvs/patch mined 59 minerals/scv per minute.
1.3 scvs/patch mined 54 minerals/scv per minute.
1.6 scvs/patch mined 50 minerals/scv per minute.
1.9 scvs/patch mined 47 minerals/scv per minute.
2.2 scvs/patch mined 45 minerals/scv per minute.
2.5 scvs/patch mined 43 minerals/scv per minute.
2.8 scvs/patch mined 41 minerals/scv per minute.
3.1 scvs/patch mined 41 minerals/scv per minute.

I ran 8 trials of each, and these are heavily rounded averages. I used the more precise numbers in the calculations later on.

Now, that is how fast they return minerals. Note: about 3 scvs/patch mines approximately double what 1.0 scvs/patch mines. To determine what is really best, the cost of the scvs, plus appropriate Supply Depots and the Command Centre must be taken into consideration.

Assuming 9 patches of minerals (which is very common on most currently popular maps (excluding fastest, which I do not like playing)), the costs of mining with said number of scvs is

1.0 scvs/patch is 838 minerals
1.3 scvs/patch is 1025 minerals
1.6 scvs/patch is 1150 minerals
1.9 scvs/patch is 1338 minerals
2.2 scvs/patch is 1525 minerals
2.5 scvs/patch is 1713 minerals
2.8 scvs/patch is 1838 minerals
3.1 scvs/patch is 2025 minerals

Now, you may think I'm nuts with these calculations, but I've taken into consideration that there is a supply cost to having this many scvs, as well as the cost of the command centre. Although you do not pay for the first one, IMO it is more important knowing how much an expansion will cost.

Now, comparing the rate of mining compared to the cost, it comes out as follows

1.0 scvs/patch returns 63% of its cost per minute
1.3 scvs/patch returns 63% of its cost per minute
1.6 scvs/patch returns 61% of its cost per minute
1.9 scvs/patch returns 60% of its cost per minute
2.2 scvs/patch returns 59% of its cost per minute
2.5 scvs/patch returns 58% of its cost per minute
2.8 scvs/patch returns 58% of its cost per minute
3.1 scvs/patch returns 57% of its cost per minute

This is where I thought it would be different. They are all very similar. I thought there would actually be a peak somewhere around 2.5, which is why most people argue that it is the best.



Now, considering a real-game situation:

If your opponant has his main and natural, and his mineral line is saturated (3+ workers/patch), that is a huge investment. To get roughly the same rate of mining as your opponant has, you need to have your main, natural, and 2 more expansions with 1.0 scvs/patch.

Multiple bases have some benefits, such as more space, better map control, etc. Also, if you are harassed, it does not hurt your economy as badly as if you had all of your workers in a smaller area. This also frees up your max supply better (ie. you use 40 scv, your opponant uses 60), so you can have a larger army in total. You also have the ability to make twice as many comsat/nuclear silos (for those who actually make them.....) as your opponant. You can also produce workers at twice the rate of your opponant (yes, Zerg is different, but a similar principle applies to them too, they have a maximum rate of building units in total, instead of just workers).

The main downside I see is that you are more open to attacks, because you have to spread yourself out more. Unless you can somehow contain your opponant, you will be at their mercy.

So, because of this, I believe there must be a medium somewhere. Only mining out of two bases at a time hurts in some ways, but it is easier to defend. Mining out of more bases gives you a better economy for a lower cost, and allows you to build a bigger army but you are more spread out.

Maybe this is why that "2.5 workers/mineral patch" is a rule of thumb. It is somewhere inbetween. Also, 2.5 scvs/patch allows you to transfer a few workers to a newly made expansion without hurting your current economy. That is a huge benefit.

It appears that between 2 and 2.5 workers/patch is actually ideal. It has benefits, and drawbacks compared to either extreme, but it is not as severe. Instead of continuing scv production after 2.5, you should start another CC (if you haven't already, and you probably should have).

This information also means - if you get a good containment on your opponant, FLAUNT IT. Go out and build another command centre (or 2, 3, 4+) if you can, and have only 1 scvs/patch mining. If they break containment, you've still probably had an excellent return on investment (it only takes about 100 seconds of mining at each one to pay for itself, anything after that is helping your economy in a huge way).

I've played a couple of long macro games, where this kind of mentality has either won or lost the game for me. Now I know why.

Anyways, I thought I would share this revelation with some other SC players.



As a side note - why is there no love for the Wraith? I love that unit. It is an awesome sniper unit. I typically use 6-10 every game, for economy/supply harassment, and sniping dropships, science vessels, overlords, guardians, shuttles, carriers, battlecruisers, reavers, sieged tanks, arbiters, etc..... They are so useful as snipers, to run in, hit something scary, then retreat. Is this impractical in higher levels of play?
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
azndsh
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States4447 Posts
March 22 2009 04:57 GMT
#2
I think your numbers have to be wrong

1.0 scvs/patch mined 59 minerals/scv per minute.
1.3 scvs/patch mined 54 minerals/scv per minute.
1.6 scvs/patch mined 50 minerals/scv per minute.
1.9 scvs/patch mined 47 minerals/scv per minute.
2.2 scvs/patch mined 45 minerals/scv per minute.
2.5 scvs/patch mined 43 minerals/scv per minute.
2.8 scvs/patch mined 41 minerals/scv per minute.
3.1 scvs/patch mined 41 minerals/scv per minute.


you're saying that SCVs are no less efficient between 2.8 and 3.1? Also, are those multiples of 9 SCVs?
inReacH
Profile Blog Joined August 2008
Sweden1612 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-03-22 05:09:51
March 22 2009 05:09 GMT
#3
While this is good work(assuming it was tested well), the reason such scrupulous analysis is unnecessary is because it's fine to get too many SCVS because at any given moment, in any given game, you will be planning on expanding soon and then you can transfer scvs to your new expansion.

The exception I suppose is if you are developing an all in timing attack BO and you are sure you won't be expanding.

Still nice to see this stuff.

stack
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
Canada348 Posts
March 22 2009 05:13 GMT
#4
appreciate the arduous process you went through.

tho its very likely youd have to do this some more times to truly sell anyone on the finding.
life is short, dont F it up
nataziel
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
Australia1455 Posts
March 22 2009 05:24 GMT
#5
Sick first post man, good work.
u gotta sk8
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4198 Posts
March 22 2009 05:34 GMT
#6
As for the difference between 2.8 and 3.1 - those are rounded. It is 41.2 and 39.7 respectively. These are extrapolations from the graph of logistic equation of best fit of the points plotted (which were obtained through calculations of the results). II figured that the logistic equation would be the best choice, because there will be a maximum rate that the minerals can be mined at. 3 scvs/patch is nearly at the limit. A logistic equation does match the points well.

The reason I showed by the 0.3 incriments is that they were generally closer to whole numbers, and I wouldn't have to clutter the post with decimals.



I found that there is little difference for the rate of mining/cost between 1 per patch and 3 per patch. I did not expect this. However, having more expansions means that your economy will continue steadily for a longer period of time, whereas your opponant will have to build at a new location to continue mining.

In a real game situation, there are a lot more variables. At least I know that whether I sit and turtle in a single base, I can keep up if my opponant has two. At least for the time being.



Yes, more testing would be needed before it would be conclusive, but it gave me enough information to make my decision on it.

"Knowledge is useless unless you pass it on." That's a quote that my High School math teacher taught me.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
March 22 2009 05:55 GMT
#7
On March 22 2009 14:34 lMPERVlOUS wrote:

In a real game situation, there are a lot more variables. At least I know that whether I sit and turtle in a single base, I can keep up if my opponant has two. At least for the time being.


Interesting work overall. I've examined this statement for a minute or two, trying to figure out what you meant. Won't your opponent having 2 Command centers (or Nexus' or Hatches) quickly enable them to outproduce you in peons? I can only see this statement being true of zerg, who are capable of powering out the same number of drones from one base as a two base person.

However, this also does not account for the linearity of vespene, which ensures that you will be unable to maintain parity with an opponent who has one expansion additional to yours. I guess I'm basically questioning your statement that turtling enables an economic equality beyond a very brief one. And even then, with the way maynarding works, they will likely being to out produce you within a minute, as they should have an equal number of scvs/probes to you.

(Also, is there a point beyond which there is no return on investment for additional miners?)
Saracen
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
United States5139 Posts
March 22 2009 06:21 GMT
#8
conclusion: more expos -> zerg is the awesomest race ^_^
tentaclemonster
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
United States118 Posts
March 22 2009 06:31 GMT
#9
nice work. maybe also take consideration that a base saturated with miners takes heavier loss from storm/reaver/siege/lurker (anything with splash dmg ) drops. so more all the more reason to expo all over if you can.
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4198 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-03-22 06:39:58
March 22 2009 06:35 GMT
#10
Yes, if your opponant has two Command Centres to your one, they can outproduce your workers quickly, which puts you into a new level of trouble. Pumping out workers is a short term solution to being contained by your opponant. If you don't break it, you're going to be out-macro-ed later on.

And this does not take into consideration the gathering of Vespene. This hurts your ability to make units higher up in the tech tree, as well as making necessary upgrades.

It would only last a few minutes at maximum, before your opponant starts to completely outproduce you. As I said, it is "for the time being".

By the look of the curve, there is very little return on investment after 3.7-4.0 scvs/patch, basically a negligible amount. This is based on the extrapolation of the curve though, so I do not know exactly. A logarithmic curve will approach a limit, but never reach it. This makes sense for this situation, because the minerals can only be mined so fast, it has a limiting factor to it.



Bah, Terran is by far the most awesomest race. We've got tanks, guns, and BATTLECRUISERS (not that I've used them in more than 1 game, and even then.....). Plus, we've got COMSAT, allowing us to check out anything we want. What is cooler than that? NOTHING!!!!!



Yea, I did cover that (under the "less affected by a harassment" comment I made in the original post). However, it is more likely that you will be unable to stop a harassment.

It is a tradeoff - yes, you are less affected, but it is more likely to happen. It really seems that a balance of 2.0-2.5 scvs/patch is ideal.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
azndsh
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States4447 Posts
March 22 2009 08:53 GMT
#11
a logistic equation would be a terrible fit for this data if you think about it logically. If it gets to 4-5 scvs/patch, it's clearly going to be much less... it's not going to stay at some maximum
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4198 Posts
March 22 2009 17:41 GMT
#12
Okay, yes, a logistic equation is a horrible fit for the "rate per scv", but the actual rate per scv is a logistic equation divided by the number of scvs.

The "rate in total" is a logistic equation. I was not very clear about that. The "rate in total" has a limit to how fast it can be mined.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
emucxg
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
Finland4559 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-03-22 17:54:58
March 22 2009 17:52 GMT
#13
There is already a long project result about this on Chinese Forums


I think somebody can translate it to English

The result is workers = minerals patch x 3 - 1
Knickknack
Profile Joined February 2004
United States1187 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-03-22 18:37:25
March 22 2009 18:07 GMT
#14
^ i agree with that formula
between 2.5-3.0 is ideal for most normal actual play, not 2.0-2.5
analyze good macro players such as flash, or play on your own and see.

Also see this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=83287


| www.ArtofProtoss.vze.com |
H
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
New Zealand6138 Posts
March 22 2009 18:29 GMT
#15
On March 23 2009 02:52 emucxg wrote:
The result is workers = minerals patch x 3 - 1


thanks, I'll remember this
[iHs]HCO | のヮの | pachi & plexa ownz | RIP _
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4198 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-03-22 18:32:09
March 22 2009 18:31 GMT
#16
workers = minerals patch * 3 - 1

I found that even when you went to 3.1 scvs per mineral patch, the rate of return of minerals still increases.

I compared the cost of the system to the rate of return, and I found that the ideal number of workers is actually at 1.0 per pach (but I do not know how it would work with less, my feeling is that it is actually equal to 1.0 per patch).

Looking at real game situations, that is impractical, because it is more difficult to defend, and it takes time to build an expansion. Also, having extra workers at a mining area is not a bad thing.

However, there are benefits to it having a lot of expansions.

For instance - I played an EPIC game of TvT on Python a while ago. I put a fairly early contain my opponant, and limited him to 3 bases (I destroyed his fourth). I proceeded to make an expansion at every spot save 1, and I only had at maximum 1.0 scvs/patch at any of them (other than at the very beginning when I only had 2, I had close to 3.0 per).

I had 8 small bases to his 3 big ones. We both had a similar amount of SCVs mining at any given time (I actually had less). I had a larger army, and I was able to recover my losses faster.

The whole game led to him trying to move out with his army, or he would harass me and kill off my expansions, only to have me rebuild them. I had units all over the battlefield, enabling me to shoot down his Dropships before they could do too much damage, and also it allowed me to react to where he was attacking, allowing me to push him back. I lost a lot more units than he did during the game.

Eventually he mined out, and I was able to stop him from expanding, and when his final units died, I officially won the game.

This game is what spiked my interest in the "ideal mining" subject. I had a better economy, I was able to sustain it longer, and I was able to have a larger total army, because I spread myself out more. For a large portion of the game, I had 10 factories pumping units constantly. At one point, I had 12 factories pumping units. He made about as many factories, but I killed most of them early on, and he did not have more than 6 pumping units at any given time.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
darnoconrad
Profile Joined September 2008
Canada110 Posts
March 22 2009 23:46 GMT
#17
Knowledge is useful if you can use it!
Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be convinced by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone. - Ayn Rand
rrsszzcc
Profile Joined March 2009
China22 Posts
March 23 2009 11:23 GMT
#18
Haven't figured out what ur formula is
May be follow the tactic idea is the most important thing, you can have that much scvs if you want to make a rush.
cyx
McCrank
Profile Joined March 2008
204 Posts
March 23 2009 12:03 GMT
#19
I did some tests myself some time back to figure out how many SCVs were necessary to get maximum out of an expansion. Never used it to anything because in a game you always produce SCVs so when you expand you can move like 24 SCVs there straight away.
Impervious
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Canada4198 Posts
March 23 2009 14:17 GMT
#20
On March 23 2009 20:23 rrsszzcc wrote:
Haven't figured out what ur formula is
May be follow the tactic idea is the most important thing, you can have that much scvs if you want to make a rush.


I don't have a formula. I tried to make one, but there really isn't one.

Basically, no matter how much you spend on your economy (until about 3.0 workers/patch), you get a similar return on investment.

The most efficient setup is to have 1.0 workers/patch, and you can have more units because you use less workers to keep up the same economy. As Terran, you gain the ability to use more Comsat or Nukes. As Zerg you gain the ability to produce units faster. Your economy is more stable against harassment, because it hurts a smaller portion of your economy than it would if you hit one of your opponants expansions. You can also outlast your opponant, because your opponant will mine out quicker.

However, you are more spread out, which means you are more vulnerable to harassment and counterattacks. Also, it takes longer to see a return on investment than simply adding SCVs at each current expansion.

This is why I believe that there is no "ideal" number of workers - it depends on the map, you, your opponant, and other factors. Knowing that you get a similar return on investment, you make your own decision on what is better - 1.0 workers/patch, 3.0+ workers/patch, or something inbetween.
~ \(ˌ)im-ˈpər-vē-əs\ : not capable of being damaged or harmed.
1 2 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
HSC 27: Groups A & B
CranKy Ducklings115
Liquipedia
OSC
20:00
Mid Season Playoffs
Gerald vs MojaLIVE!
ArT vs Jumy
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 162
PiGStarcraft152
NeuroSwarm 144
RuFF_SC2 130
CosmosSc2 51
StarCraft: Brood War
Artosis 799
Aegong 112
NaDa 67
Icarus 8
Dota 2
monkeys_forever200
capcasts145
League of Legends
JimRising 697
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox745
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor115
Other Games
summit1g10085
tarik_tv1708
shahzam651
Maynarde139
Mew2King53
ZombieGrub4
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1364
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH266
• Hupsaiya 58
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• RayReign 14
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift5423
• Jankos1346
• masondota2717
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
7h 54m
RSL Revival
7h 54m
ByuN vs Classic
Clem vs Cham
WardiTV European League
13h 54m
Replay Cast
21h 54m
RSL Revival
1d 7h
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
WardiTV European League
1d 13h
FEL
1d 13h
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
[ Show More ]
FEL
2 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
BSL: ProLeague
3 days
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-28
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
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 © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.