• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 16:01
CEST 22:01
KST 05:01
  • 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
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202551RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams5Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 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 [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
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 Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 803 users

Thoughts on DH and LotV Economy - Page 2

Forum Index > Legacy of the Void
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 Next All
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
June 21 2015 20:47 GMT
#21
On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.

DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
EsportsJohn
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4883 Posts
June 21 2015 20:48 GMT
#22
On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.

DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.


For the sake of everyone here who, like myself, never knew that "interleaved mining" was thing, could you explain it a little more?
StrategyAllyssa Grey <3<3
ZeromuS
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada13389 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-21 21:01:52
June 21 2015 21:01 GMT
#23
On June 22 2015 05:48 SC2John wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:
On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.

DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.


For the sake of everyone here who, like myself, never knew that "interleaved mining" was thing, could you explain it a little more?


Yeah technically they take turns but they are offset in such a way that they look paired but are not paired like they are in HotS. I decided to ignore this in my discussions because its yet another layer of complexity.

this only happens when they do three trips though, not when they do 2. So its interleaved in DH9 and not interleaved in DH10.
StrategyRTS forever | @ZeromuS_plays | www.twitch.tv/Zeromus_
Penev
Profile Joined October 2012
28475 Posts
June 21 2015 21:02 GMT
#24
On June 22 2015 05:47 BlackLilium wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2015 04:50 Penev wrote:
Just for the sake of completeness: You do realize that DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing? I don't see why you won't have mining efficiency decreased starting with 8 workers instead of 16; It's apparent the game only benefits from it.

DH is not removing worker pairing. It is reducing the efficiency of mining of 2 workers while they still pair.

It's a work around to simulate the absence of worker pairing.

I Protoss winner, could it be?
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
June 21 2015 21:15 GMT
#25
Yes, I see the "work around" term... but the whole sentence: "DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing"
I read as: there is some work around in order to achieve worker pairing removal.
Either way, DH has nothing to do with existence - or lack of - worker pairing. It takes HotS model and then gradually reduces efficiency of mining when the amount of harvesters per mineral increases.
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
Penev
Profile Joined October 2012
28475 Posts
June 21 2015 21:56 GMT
#26
On June 22 2015 06:15 BlackLilium wrote:
Yes, I see the "work around" term... but the whole sentence: "DH is just a work around to remove worker pairing"
I read as: there is some work around in order to achieve worker pairing removal.
Either way, DH has nothing to do with existence - or lack of - worker pairing. It takes HotS model and then gradually reduces efficiency of mining when the amount of harvesters per mineral increases.

I suggest you (re)read ZeromuS' article.

From the (original) article:
To truly break the mining cap in SCII, we need to introduce inefficiencies in mining at the worker level by eliminating workers pairing on mineral lines. When you remove worker pairing, workers become less efficient beginning with the 9th worker, as opposed to the 17th, and a non-linear mining curve is introduced to the game, as income remains consistent until a base completely mines out.


I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.
I Protoss winner, could it be?
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-21 22:09:12
June 21 2015 22:02 GMT
#27
Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow).
ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion.

On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:
I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.

I didn't want to pull that card. But if you do it this way then may I ask if you know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is its author. I presume you know the answer, right?

On June 22 2015 06:01 ZeromuS wrote:
this only happens when they do three trips though, not when they do 2. So its interleaved in DH9 and not interleaved in DH10.

Unfortunately, interleaved mining, as well as sequential mining, is possible in both DH2xX and DH3xX. This adds complexity in balancing things up. But we talked about it a lot some time ago, I thought you know it?
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
Penev
Profile Joined October 2012
28475 Posts
June 21 2015 22:08 GMT
#28
On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:
Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow).
ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion.

Show nested quote +
On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.

Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right?

Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around".
It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th?
I Protoss winner, could it be?
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-21 22:21:45
June 21 2015 22:11 GMT
#29
On June 22 2015 07:08 Penev wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:
Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow).
ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion.

On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.

Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right?

Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around".
It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th?


As I said before - DH has nothing to do with worker pairing. It allows workers to pair in the same way as HotS does.
However, when workers do pair, they mine at a bit lower efficiency, while not saturating the mineral patch completely. That was the sole reason for DH.
The discussion of worker pairing in the context of DH appeared only later as a tool to compare it to Starbow for example.


Anyway... I think we highjacked this thread discussing theories and getting off-topic.
I apologize!
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
Penev
Profile Joined October 2012
28475 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-21 22:27:10
June 21 2015 22:25 GMT
#30
On June 22 2015 07:11 BlackLilium wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2015 07:08 Penev wrote:
On June 22 2015 07:02 BlackLilium wrote:
Workers are paired when they consistently mine from the same mineral patch, as opposed to bouncing off (e.g. like in Starbow).
ZeromuS is not entirely accurate in his statement over there and that may be the source of the confusion.

On June 22 2015 06:56 Penev wrote:I know DH, and the different variations thereof, have their own characteristics.

Then you probably know about the first DH mod, why it was created and who is the author, right?

Hehe, didn't remember your name. I guess I could've better emphasized "simulate" rather than "work around".
It is, at least originally, why DH was developed isn't it? To simulate the effects of removing worker pairing so that inefficiency started at the 9th worker instead of the 17th?


As I said before - DH has nothing to do with worker pairing. It allows workers to pair in the same way as HotS does.
However, when workers do pair, they mine at a bit lower efficiency, while not saturating the mineral patch completely. That was the sole reason for DH.
The discussion of worker pairing in the context of DH appeared only later as a tool to compare it to Starbow for example.

I know it does.. I just meant, from ZeromuS' article, the too efficient mining in SC2 is caused by worker pairing and DH is a method of creating mining inefficiency from the 9th worker, like removal of worker pairing would also create.
I really get the impression that that is what ZeromuS wants at least. I mean
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach

Didn't/ don't want to offend anyone.

Edit: Let me apologize as well then!
I Protoss winner, could it be?
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
June 21 2015 22:28 GMT
#31
On June 22 2015 07:25 Penev wrote:
Didn't/ don't want to offend anyone.

No problems with me, man. Let's move on
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
Lexender
Profile Joined September 2013
Mexico2641 Posts
June 21 2015 22:32 GMT
#32
On June 18 2015 14:54 AmicusVenti wrote:
The LotV econ makes it so that's it's difficult to have more than 3 bases mining at full capacity. I'd be surprised to see that ever happen, to be honest.


I disagree, from my experience playing (altough I'm just a scrub) and watching the game, most of the difficulty that exist for taking bases stems from the strenght of the new/buffed/changed units and lack of timings/meta, because I've acutally seen players turtle-ish or simply take bases much slowly work, right now the mining efficiency its new so players are adapting, but I believe (and I'm starting to see) LotV turning into just a little bit faster version of HotS
JimmyJRaynor
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Canada16699 Posts
June 21 2015 22:38 GMT
#33
On June 22 2015 07:32 Lexender wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 18 2015 14:54 AmicusVenti wrote:
The LotV econ makes it so that's it's difficult to have more than 3 bases mining at full capacity. I'd be surprised to see that ever happen, to be honest.


I disagree, from my experience playing (altough I'm just a scrub) and watching the game, most of the difficulty that exist for taking bases stems from the strenght of the new/buffed/changed units and lack of timings/meta, because I've acutally seen players turtle-ish or simply take bases much slowly work, right now the mining efficiency its new so players are adapting, but I believe (and I'm starting to see) LotV turning into just a little bit faster version of HotS


do you have a replay of more than 3 bases mining at full capacity?
i don't think i've seen it happen in any LotV game i've played.
Ray Kassar To David Crane : "you're no more important to Atari than the factory workers assembling the cartridges"
Espers
Profile Joined August 2009
United Kingdom606 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-21 23:11:26
June 21 2015 23:08 GMT
#34
I think the DH economy wasn't very noticeable because with with reaching the supply cap so fast you can't really take advantage of that superior income and go into crazy macro mode. In BW Zerg Hydras were 1 supply, Lurkers 2 supply and Ultralisks 4 supply so you could really take advantage of a 4+ base economy and pump out a huge army. You didn't max out on Hydralisks after 12 minutes like you would max out on Roaches in SC2.

Also when you don't have defensive tools like Lurkers, Scourge or Sunkens (strong spines) you can't really secure a super economy. I think the game would have to be rebalanced around a DH8 economy to get it to work. It would be for the best but I don't think Blizzard is prepared to do a rehaul of that magnitude, just some superficial changes.

The LotV economy will end up being a massive mistake for a lot of reasons imo, most simply-worded one being expanding should be strategical, not forced.
Pontius Pirate
Profile Blog Joined August 2013
United States1557 Posts
June 22 2015 00:17 GMT
#35
I'm definitely thinking that 300 supply cap is sounding more and more like the way to go. This can even be adjusted in team games, so that 2v2 retains the 200 supply cap. It's not like 2v2 is the main problem area. It doesn't necessarily need adjustment on that front. Hell, 3v3 could lower it to 175 and 4v4 could lower it down to 150 to mitigate performance issues therein.
"I had to close the door so my parents wouldn't judge me." - ZombieGrub during the ShitfaceTradeTV stream
bhfberserk
Profile Joined August 2011
Canada390 Posts
June 22 2015 01:47 GMT
#36
I would love to see 300 supply cap being tested. It would be really epic to see big armies clashing.
Dingodile
Profile Joined December 2011
4133 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-22 08:30:30
June 22 2015 08:25 GMT
#37
Did someone consider the power of mainbuilding? What do you think if we see a 8 base zerg vs 6 base terran game? Terran will abuse pretty hard with mules. Protoss with mass chronos. Zerg is pretty weak at it. I have said few years ago about that, mainbuilding are too important/powerful with their abilities in sc2. Hatcheries power are only strong until ~4 base.

Edit:
On June 22 2015 10:47 bhfberserk wrote:
I would love to see 300 supply cap being tested. It would be really epic to see big armies clashing.

And 300/300 battles are as long as 200/200. More kaboom without seeing what happened like todays crime thriller cinema movies? No thanks. There is a reason why ~100 vs 100 supply fights are slightly longer than 200/200 (fights with +1 vs +1 or +2 vs +2 are longer than +3 vs +3 upgrades) and they are more entertaining to watch and play.
Grubby | ToD | Moon | Lyn | Sky
BlackLilium
Profile Joined April 2011
Poland426 Posts
June 22 2015 10:00 GMT
#38
On June 22 2015 17:25 Dingodile wrote:
Did someone consider the power of mainbuilding? What do you think if we see a 8 base zerg vs 6 base terran game? Terran will abuse pretty hard with mules. Protoss with mass chronos. Zerg is pretty weak at it. I have said few years ago about that, mainbuilding are too important/powerful with their abilities in sc2. Hatcheries power are only strong until ~4 base.

It's really hard to compare. It all depends on the scenario and what you are trying to accomplish.

Scenario 1: late late starvation on one mining base
So we have 6-8 bases but only one is mining. All your 60 workers are there (or maybe you even sacrificed some). Here MULE shines because it bypass the saturation point.

Scenario 2: lots of bases without money and workers
A lot of harrasment occured. You are low on resources and workers.
A mule help a lot for an instant mineral boost. However, your worker production is going to be at a constant rate of 6-workers at a time. Protoss can speed it up only a bit. Zerg can rebuild his workers at the fastest rate, but being on low minerals may mean that you simply don't have the money to build as fast.

Scenario 3: one base need workers
A harrasment occured and your one base is empty. Need to build workers for that one base. Terran MULE's can compensate for the lack of SCVs for a while, but are no long-term remedy to the problem. Protoss can boost their probe production a bit. Zerg can redrone the base almost instantly!

Scenario 4: lots of mining bases
Probably the most common scenario late game. You have your defences up, income is high. You don't need more minerals that much. What matters is how fast you can convert those minerals into actual units. MULEs are useless in this scenario. Chronoboost helps a bit. What shines the most is the larva mechanic allowing you to remax really quickly. Another useful thing - not related to the main building - is the warpgate mechanic allowing you to remax near the front.

Bottom line
I am not trying to prove that your statement is wrong. What I am saying is that you are focusing on a single case where imbalances do exist. But if you consider all other cases - which there are a lot - it is no longer so one-sided.

If I was to give an overview of all of this I would say:
  • Mule is an instant eco boost, but does not help directly in army production at all.
  • Chronoboost is a jack of all trades. Eco can benefit a bit, tech can benefit a bit, army production can benefit a bit.
  • Zerg helps an eco decently, but also helps a lot in army production. Zerg however has to trade between drone and army production, which puts it in a unique situation, compared to other races.
[MOD]Economy - Hot Mineral Harvesting
JimmyJRaynor
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Canada16699 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-06-22 12:13:05
June 22 2015 12:10 GMT
#39
I spend most of my time in Diamond League in HotS and what i like most about the LotV economy model is what it does to 1-base players.

I'd say 10% of my games are against players with a 1-base recipe for winning the game. This is not just a build order. Its more precise. As an example, Its 2 Tanks, 15 Marines, 1 Medivac, 1 Viking, x # of SCVs ,Combat Shield finished. ATTACK. Or some either exact recipe for playing off of just 1 base with ZERO intent of ever expanding.

Some of these guys have way better micro than i do. Sometimes i think these guys are higher level players stress testing some new strat. Whatever the case is though....

What i like is... LotV economy puts these guys ON THE CLOCK. They either win outright or run out of resources fast.

The game ends a lot faster and we can both move on a lot faster.
Ray Kassar To David Crane : "you're no more important to Atari than the factory workers assembling the cartridges"
Cascade
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
Australia5405 Posts
June 22 2015 13:05 GMT
#40
On June 18 2015 14:34 SC2John wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/485495-lotv-economy-non-linearity-in-time?page=4#78


Basically, the two economies are actually not mutually exclusive. You can use both a limited resource model like the LotV model on top of the DH model without clashing. The issue with the DH model vs the LotV is not the opposition of what they actually do, but the opposition of approaches to the game. While the supporters of the DH model are generally in favor of increasing base counts and creating a dynamic position based macro game, the direction Blizzard seems to be interested in is a game which puts emphasis on fast-paced scrappy fighting over scarce resources.

That said, I want to make it very clear that the two models CAN work in tandem, and the result would probably be a better game. However, I think the issue is that conflicting design ideas prevent them from adopting purely because they don't want to spend a bunch of time balancing around a concept which they are moving away from to begin with. The LotV model will work fine for what they're intending, but it won't be the type of game we were trying to create with DH (AKA more "BW-like").


On June 21 2015 16:46 BlackLilium wrote:
ok, I see what you mean.
How do you think, however, increasing the worker build time would affect the game?

It would probably delay the peak economy, right?
I am worried however, that it would also force people on a more aggressive build path (since you cannot spend money on workers, you spend on fighting units), reducing the difference between someone all-ining and someone going macro build.
Which, in case of DH, might not be that bad thing.


On June 22 2015 09:17 Pontius Pirate wrote:
I'm definitely thinking that 300 supply cap is sounding more and more like the way to go. This can even be adjusted in team games, so that 2v2 retains the 200 supply cap. It's not like 2v2 is the main problem area. It doesn't necessarily need adjustment on that front. Hell, 3v3 could lower it to 175 and 4v4 could lower it down to 150 to mitigate performance issues therein.

I'll try to run simulations for DH8+lotv (people seem to favour DH8 these days), longer worker build time and 300 supply cap. Shouldn't be too hard I think, essentially just changing some parameters. It won't tell you how the gameplay will be ofc, but I think it says something about how rewarding extra bases will be, and you can see how the rate of exponential economy increase changes, which in turn affects how effective harass is. I think the last point with faster exponential growth giving less time for non-economy investment to pay back is essentially that super-long article thedwf wrote some time ago, correct? I never read it... Anyway, feel free to badger me if I dont get it done in a couple of days.
Prev 1 2 3 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 14h 59m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .263
Nathanias 134
BRAT_OK 111
ForJumy 103
ProTech76
StarCraft: Brood War
Mini 553
ivOry 5
Dota 2
monkeys_forever35
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K3158
Fnx 1012
Foxcn357
sgares343
oskar230
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu502
Other Games
FrodaN3033
Gorgc2805
qojqva936
Dendi713
C9.Mang0137
QueenE87
Trikslyr84
Sick35
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV34
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Adnapsc2 11
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22073
• WagamamaTV706
Other Games
• imaqtpie1605
• Shiphtur444
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
14h 59m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
17h 59m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 13h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 17h
CSO Cup
1d 19h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 21h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
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
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.