• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
TeamLiquid Liquipedia LiquidDota LiquidLegends
EDT 18:15
CEST 00:15
KST 07:15
  • 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
[BSL15] Ro16 Recap Pt.13Lore of the Nexus: The Angiris Council0DHM Valencia: Power Rank52[TSL9] Prize Pool & Talent18Code S RO10 - Group B, Day 1 Preview (Season 2)7
Community News
2022 AfreecaTV Challengers Starleague Season 211BSL 2v2 ProLeague x ShieldBattery - SIGN UP NOW!14Code S RO10 Groups announced, RO20 final results1ESL Open #128: ByuN, MaxPax, Scarlett win3Artosis to leave Korea after GSL Season 3, possibility of online GSL casts?87
StarCraft 2
General
Rogue & Trap out for DHM Valencia? Doublelift on State of SC2 and the Various Regions Zest Retires Forbidden Ground buildings DHM Valencia: Power Rank
Tourneys
DreamHack Masters: Valencia 2022 - Main Event [TSL 9] Qualifiers HSC XXI Qualifiers [GSL 2022] Code S:Season 2 - Ro10 Group A ProBots 2022 Season 2
Strategy
herO's PvZ Simple Questions Simple Answers What should I try to work on to improve my TvZ [G] YAKS LOTV: Yet Another hotKey Setup - zerg
Custom Maps
Simple Questions/Answers [A] SC Real Scale
External Content
Mutation # 324 Violent Night Mutation # 323 Well Trained Mutation # 322 Warp Zone Mutation # 321 Rise From Ashes
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion repmastered.app: replay sharing and analyzer site BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [BSL15] Ro16 Recap Pt.1 YellOw wins poker tournament for $696,000 USD
Tourneys
Hawk vs Artosis Show match July 6th 50$ prize pool No-Worries League - Similar-Skill Match-Making Deathfate Pro Team League 2 Announcement [BSL15] - RO16 Group C - Friday 17:00 CEST
Strategy
A new RTS map for scbw Project: Strat Update ZvT Guardian Hydra Optimized Strategy before the gosus
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Final Fantasy XIV Diablo Immoral The PlayStation 5 Crossfire: Legion - A new RTS combining C&C and SC
Dota 2
[DPC 21-22] Tour 3 Discussion/LR Official Dota and Chess General Discussion TL.net migration megathread + LiquidDota archive LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net LiquidDota Site Rules
League of Legends
[Patch 12.7] Arcana Skins Release Discussion LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net [Summer Split] LoL Esports General Discussion [Patch Notes] Release General Discussion
Heroes of the Storm
HotS: WP and Funny Moments Lore of the Nexus: The Angiris Council Mapping Heroes: Battleground Stats
Hearthstone
TL Mafia
British Empire Mini Mafia II TL Mafia Community Thread Chezinu streak(s) Mafia Sengoku Mafia Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread NASA and the Private Sector If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting happened and people disagree on what to do The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
Day[9] Fan Club soO Fan Club Zest Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Korean Music Discussion Movie Discussion! [TV] HBO Game of Thrones [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2021 - 2022 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion 2021 NFL/CFB Season McBoner: A hockey love story
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Starcraft 2 No longer going on top of Start Bar The Ultimate Mouse Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Helping
ChristianS
On Radicalization and S…
plasmidghost
Bravery and cowardice…
Starlightsun
My daughter wants to pla…
JoinTheRain
On gun violence in America…
MrBitter
First time having "S*X".
Garnet
Gomorrah
Broodwar4lyf
Getting Back to it..!.20 years…
FuDDx
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1198 users

[D] High-level design decisions

Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games
Post a Reply
1 2 Next All
unjugon
Profile Joined March 2011
Spain119 Posts
March 14 2011 12:21 GMT
#1
Hey all, just starting here in TL. I am developing an ambitious custom map with highly dynamic gameplay that should cater to competitive ladder players as well custom map players. However, my mind still quibbles over some of the design decisions. Hope you are kind enough to give me your feedback on the following issues:

1- Different victory conditions. Atm I am aiming for three victory conditions for the default mode of the game: i) destroying the enemy main building, ii) accumulating a certain amount of a resource, and iii) holding a control point on the map for a certain time. The idea here is that players would change what victory condition they are pursuing on the fly during a game, making it more dynamic. They also have to "predict" what victory condition the enemy is pursuing. Do you think this would work well / is feasible at all?

I am particularly excited but doubtful about the condition of accumulating a certain amount of a resource. My idea is that some players could decide to use all of the resource to try to gain an advantage, while others could try to save some of it little by little, hopefully making for some interesting decisions players would have to make. Would this work at all? Or would players never save/not use the resource? I am thinking it could maybe work if the amount needed to win was fairly low, but I am not sure.

2- Units going up in rank. I´ll be honest, the design of the game does not call for the feature of units "leveling up" of sorts. It is supposed to be a fast, competitive game -taking perhaps 20-30 minutes to finish at most.
But the feature undeniably adds some level of fun. Plus to make it more dynamic I thought that unit upgrades could be linked to the rank of the unit -ie. a unit is able to use a new ability when he reaches rank 3 for instance. I am just not sure how this would play out. Take into account that I want units/battles to last a bit longer than those in starcraft 2, and that players will control at most 15-20 units.

SacredSoul
Profile Joined February 2011
United States76 Posts
March 14 2011 12:55 GMT
#2
The unit leveling sounds a lot to me like someone used to play Warcraft III and misses long, micromanaged battles. I think its a good idea, in fact if I knew how to import skins and other in-depth aspects, I would strive to re-create Warcraft III on the starcraftII Engine.

I think that having the player chose one of the three VCs while the other choses his independently is a great idea, one must now remember to protect his base, and either gain a military advantage to achieve the building kill (costing resources), or protect "the hill", save up the cash and expand (costing resources) and trying to use as few units as possible to fight off the enemy.

It makes for interesting gameplay for sure. If you make it I would give it a go.
"This is my card castle you ungrateful B****!" - Sean "Day[9]" Plott
Meltage
Profile Joined October 2010
Germany613 Posts
March 14 2011 13:57 GMT
#3
It is hard to give any valuable feedback when we don't know about your game concept - is it like sc2 melee maps in other aspects?

On 1. The problem that I see is if one condition is much easier to achieve than the others, making it the only valid path to go. If one player makes a more expensive army while you save resources, you can only hope to pull him off the victory point(s) if your army is more effective. I think this might work beacuse of the rock, paper, scissors-mechanic in sc2. You might want to tune this more, so that resources are less valuable and thus saveable IF you counter your opponent army well enough.
http://mentalbalans.se/aggedesign
Madsquare
Profile Joined April 2010
Germany157 Posts
March 14 2011 14:13 GMT
#4
If you want to go in depth about UMS maps and discuss about game- / leveldesign elements, I would recommend you sc2mapster. They offer these things on a higher level than TL, wich can provide more discussion about melee maps. Although you will still get decent answers here.
I do not obey any norms. I redefine standard with every thought I make.
adso
Profile Joined March 2011
718 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-14 15:22:09
March 14 2011 14:38 GMT
#5
<3 1/ "variation" of winning victory conditions" but it's going to be long to implement/create (loads of things/galaxy objects to consider)
however, your variations seem "blizz regular" to me... nothing crazy or out of the box...
not exiting to me: one main building? ... macro turtling.. control?... well i do like "control"
You can do better than that (hard to do but that's not the issue)


<3 2/ i would love "leveling units" ..not sure if most sc2players would !?
(difficult to learn for players to id which is which ..., and they are a lazy bunch ;p )

To get it "out of melee issues/discussions" just make it a mere... graph/sound issue (ie: a veteran marine has a changed sound/model to the unit (player's unit menu ingame and model displayed ingame), no stats change ;p

Crossing the two seems a nice victory trigger idea: have a unit "m"with "x" kills do "z"


glhf creating a cool galaxy

edit: fixing typo
@oneil: the 1 building would not be so easy to destroy (a 10000hp building would do it)
but i agree with the feeling though
oneil
Profile Joined March 2011
Canada73 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-14 15:09:01
March 14 2011 15:08 GMT
#6
Am I the only one who would 1 base rush mutas, mass 15-25 of them and go two shot the enemy's nexus?
You all look up to me, and I forever look down on the world. | Go to my profile to see my maps!
unjugon
Profile Joined March 2011
Spain119 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-14 15:33:26
March 14 2011 15:32 GMT
#7
I should have said that this game will be quite different from melee, though still geared towards competitive players, so issues such as the one oneil brings up do not apply (there are different rules). Thanks Meltage for the heads-up.

Basically the concept is:
Each player starts with a main building, from which it can create only 3 unit types. Players do not create buildings or a base, but rather claim neutral buildings spreaded around the map. These neutral buildings are quite diverse and form the core of the game: some let players train 11 types of units, some give resources, some give points, etc.

Many thanks for the great answers
41d3n
Profile Joined November 2010
United States44 Posts
March 14 2011 15:50 GMT
#8
Woah. Based in what you just said, it sounds like you are trying to retrofit SC2 into Advanced Wars. Awesome.

The only problem I've run into with victory conditions like this are them being exploited by the melee game balance that already exists. But, if you're going to redo the gameplay mechanics like that, you can probably overcome them. It will still take a lot of work on your part to balance it, and I can't really comment on how well it will work until it is further along in development.
"I'm not supply blocked. It's a timing push." -Myself
unjugon
Profile Joined March 2011
Spain119 Posts
March 14 2011 16:06 GMT
#9
You mean Advance Wars for Nintendo DS? I am reading about it now. The more ideas I can get the better.

I think the victory conditions part is probably a non-issue; I can always have different game modes. Plain units going up in ranks or not is probably more important at this stage of development.
unjugon
Profile Joined March 2011
Spain119 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-14 16:22:42
March 14 2011 16:20 GMT
#10
From one review of Advance Wars:

"Although every unit comes standard with 10 stamina points, each has its own specific limitations on armor, movement, attack range, and sight. For example, infantry and mechanized troops can move only short distances and must attack adjacent enemies, but they are also the only units that can capture cities or bases; APCs have thick armor and can transport troop units a great distance, but they have no attack capabilities of their own; and bombers have excellent range and insanely killer firepower, but they have very little armor and are especially vulnerable to antiaircraft guns and missiles.

Mixed in with the unit strategy, terrain type and morale level also affect your units' movement, sight, and attack capabilities. Mountains, forests, and reefs offer a defensive boost and an increased sight range, but it takes longer to traverse them, while highways offer a speed advantage to land vehicles, but only at a cost of higher vulnerability and narrowed sight. If you're playing with fog of war enabled, you can also hide units within forests and reefs for an added element of surprise. Morale is a factor to consider, as it gives attacking units a slight strength advantage over those on the receiving end. This alone can turn the tide of many battles, because it can help you gang up on enemy tanks with cost-efficient antiaircraft guns and jeeps.

Overall, Advance Wars is a highly balanced game that is easy to learn but full of strategy. Whether you excel with land, sea, or air units, you can usually find a way to exploit your own inherent strengths in battle. To make the game more interesting, however, the commanding officer you choose will also bring his own distinct strengths, weaknesses, and CO power into the equation. Andy, the first CO you'll play with, is average in all respects, but his CO power, hyper repair, is a formidable ability that can repair all allied units by two stamina points. Eagle, another CO, is known for his superior air units, but he earns most of his reputation from his CO power, lightning strike, a skill that lets all of his units attack twice in the same turn. Thankfully, CO powers are difficult to abuse, as they often take between three and eight turns to recharge, depending on how many cities you capture or how many enemy units you destroy in the meantime."


It´s kinda crazy/scary how most of those ideas are in my game -in the design document, that is- in one way or another, adapted to RTS of course -Advance Was is turn-based. Thanks 41d3n!!
41d3n
Profile Joined November 2010
United States44 Posts
March 14 2011 21:16 GMT
#11
I was actually talking about how most AW maps have neutral cities (income), factories (land units), air ports (air units), and sea ports (sea units) that you can capture and use - which is a large part of the game. I take it you haven't played an AW games (based on you having to read up on it). I recommend you do - especially the original and AW2 (both for the Gameboy Advance).
"I'm not supply blocked. It's a timing push." -Myself
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
March 15 2011 05:49 GMT
#12
I would NOT look at AW unless you are afraid of being inadvertently redundant. Originality is a false grail if you ask me, though. Most game mechanics are abstractly interchangeable anyway, and they are always camouflaged by the packaging.

I think the low number of units lends itself well to bonuses for leveling up. Individual units already stand out in a low units environment, but it adds more depth, a sort of investment trade-off, if you are not just micro'ing as usual but making sure to preserve a certain guy to level it up for later use. You will have to be very precise about what sort of bonus you get to make sure there are diverse and balanced strategies.

Multiple victory conditions will be perceived as unnecessary complexity unless there is good tension between them. Imagine if SC2 had a few different victory conditions analogous to what you described. Most games of SC2 wouldn't look that different, because the way to win at starcraft is to put yourself in a position of unstoppable advantage. The built-in victory condition of building elimination is more of a formality. You could add other ones that would be similarly extraneous to the "gg moment". What I'm trying to say is that you need to create attainable goals in distinct but interactive wings of the mechanics. Another way to put it is that it's never entirely clear who has the upper hand. Otherwise one player is already ahead and the way they win doesn't matter.

It's an interesting situation for a strategy game, because the point of them is to provide different routes to victory, different strategies. It's sort of equivalent to multiple distinct victory conditions anyway. You could, for example, provide ways to convert the different goals into things that win the game, like more / better units. But it's more exciting probably to have them be literal victory conditions. From the description so far, I think it's a good choice.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
unjugon
Profile Joined March 2011
Spain119 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-15 08:25:46
March 15 2011 08:24 GMT
#13
41d3n: I know you were referring to the diverse neutral buildings hehe. I was planning on having all neutral units trainable at one building type though; it´s interesting to think about the alternative way similar to how AW does it.

EatThePath: thanks for the detailed feedback. Another way to look at the victory conditions issue is that, if it´s never entirely clear who has the upper hand, a player would just pursue his victory condition without trying to stop the enemy from achieving his. It´s hard to get a proper view of how it would play out though. It is apparent, though, that it is a very subtle / hard to balance issue which is probably why most games stick to one victory condition.

I am quite impressed at the responses in the thread. Should I explain the game in more detail? Perhaps in a new thread sort of presenting it?
adso
Profile Joined March 2011
718 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-17 10:24:32
March 15 2011 13:37 GMT
#14
41d3n
Profile Joined November 2010
United States44 Posts
March 16 2011 17:28 GMT
#15
On March 15 2011 22:37 adso wrote:
yes you should showcase (when ready with lots of stats/eye candy and such)
yes you should create a separate thread


Second. I'd especially like to know, in greater detail, what the mechanics would entail. Whether you are focusing more on the worth of individual units or are simply trying to change how armies are built and games won.
"I'm not supply blocked. It's a timing push." -Myself
unjugon
Profile Joined March 2011
Spain119 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-17 16:23:40
March 17 2011 16:03 GMT
#16
I am just starting with the editor and predict that it will still take me 3-4 months to have something playable, so I´d rather wait a bit more to present it in a new thread -so I don´t put more pressure on myself to get it done; I have a normal job and can´t put as much time in as I would like.

But make no mistake, I will get it done. I want this game to be extremely dynamic. Players have to be able to win ala Starcraft -groups of units with upgrades overwhelming a less numerous army-, ala Warcraft -taking special care of individual units within a group-, and something in between -a small group of high ranked units.

Now, that sounds like wishful thinking...ultimately most players would end up trying to babysit units to the limit, trying to save them at all costs, which would turn the game into a micro-fest. I want games to be decided via higher-level decisions as well, so I have placed some rules to keep micro-fests in check:
- units will move slower as they get closer to dying.
- units that are standing still will take a slight time to get to full move speed (acceleration). This affects ranged units´ hit and run the most.
- limited / slow methods to heal units.

This way, aggressive players will still be able to compete with the overprotective ones. It lets me give significant bonuses to units as they go up in rank. Also note that units will get most of the experience points by being alive -only a few points for killing enemies. Hiding units -sort of an investment- will be a possible strategy, waiting for them to go up in rank before using them to fight. Weaker units will take less experience to go up in ranks, so aiming for a group of low-tier, high-rank units will be a viable strategy.

Moreover, terrain will play a part. Air units will be scarce, so most units´ move speed will be affected depending on where they are standing. A "jungle" type of terrain will block LOS, meaning that melee units can hide and jump on enemies.
Stats of units will change dynamically through buffs and permanent bonuses. Couple this with the different ranks, and it won´t be as simple as "5 marines beat 2 zealots".
Moreover, there will be a unit-type limit, which means that only X amount of units of a certain type can be on the map at the same type; if player A has X-1 of them, and player B has 0, then only 1 more unit of that type can be created between them until other units of that type die. This is most controversial, but I am looking forward to seeing how it affects games.

All this stuff about units is not the core of the game, however. I want to put special emphasis on the early game. Players will get out and fight for buildings from the get-go, and many options have to be viable. The concept of optimal build order will not exist, or at the very least it will require a lot of effort to "come up" with it.

Players will start with an Engineer -a type of unit that can go up in ranks- which can instantly capture a neutral building -the engineer disappear from the map upon doing so-, a few fighting units, and a "leader" unit. Leader units cannot be trained, revive upon dying, and cannot go up in rank. They are more support-oriented, although their main function is that they can convert neutral buildings after channeling near them for 15-20 seconds. They also have a "Fast Convert Building" ability, which can be used only 2 times, which converts a neutral building after just a couple seconds channeling. This kick-starts the early game and represent a hard decision for players: should I use the ability asap on an unclaimed neutral building, or save it to convert a neutral building claimed by an enemy? Not only this, but neutral buildings can be upgraded to offer greater bonuses; however, these upgrades stay if the enemy converts the building.
Also, players can build an "add-on" upon succesfully claiming a neutral building, so that the enemy must first destroy the add-on before capturing or converting the neutral building. This is to give players more hard decisions to make, and to keep in check the usual problem of constant hit and run.

Hopefully, this post offers greater insight of the game I have in mind. It´s intricate, and it will be a nightmare to balance, but I am positive it can compete with the best custom maps in the future.
Cannabeastwod
Profile Joined January 2011
Denmark37 Posts
March 17 2011 22:30 GMT
#17
ill play your map give me a download
Alpacino.812 friend me
Meltage
Profile Joined October 2010
Germany613 Posts
March 24 2011 13:31 GMT
#18
I would use iterations for such a huge project. Make the core first, test it out and when it works you can build on it. You have many experimental concepts for reaching your design goals and throwing them in all at once will just be messy to handle, from a design and balance perspective.

The idea with limit to unit types is interresting - locically it's like the units are not trained but rather hired and there is only that many available to hire. Gameplay-wise I can see how it leads to a greater variation in army, than it would otherwise (asuming you won't have 3 distinct playable races as sc2 does). It would force players to customize their army further than the unit composition. A downside might be that players will be able to predict what army the opponent has. I woudl limit thsi in some way, such as having most unit types hireable from a neutral building that players has to fight over.

I don't see why you'll want experience reward over time for just being alive - why make hiding units a valid strategy? It's the oposite of what wc3 achieves with heroes gaining XP on kills. Victory point control may have the same effect, though and make hiding units invalid, since you'll need all units on the field.
http://mentalbalans.se/aggedesign
unjugon
Profile Joined March 2011
Spain119 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-03-24 17:27:44
March 24 2011 17:04 GMT
#19
Thanks for reading the wall of text and giving feedback, Meltage.

Actually, I think you are completely right, there´s so much I can do at a theoretical design level with such a project with so many experimental concepts. Once that point is reached I should organize tests regularly and make tweaks to the the concepts as necessary.

On the unit-type limit, it will be exactly as you mention: the factions here will have 3 unique unit-types they can train, and then there´s a neutral building that can train another 11 unit-types for all players/factions. For the unique units there´s also a unit-type limit, else players would just mass their unique units.

With the experience for units I am not trying to simulate WC3 though. I am using it more as a way to dynamically upgrade units -I dislike how every unit of a certain type is always the same in Starcraft and most RTS-, and less as a hero system of sorts. Units have to be able to gain xp by being alive, it will streamline the system and help later in balancing. In WC3, a losing player can overcome a bad loss in a fight by quickly gaining xp killing creeps, but in this game a player who wins a battle could run away with the game all too easily if units could only gather xp via killing. We´ll see anyhow.

Gaining xp by being alive might be odd, I´ll give you that. Note that, as you say, a unit that is BOTH fighting and being alive is helping a lot more, so I don´t predict "hiding" units will be the name of the game. I think it is an strategical decision though, making sure a unit does not die so after a while you have access to a special ability. I think this offers another option to players and makes it more dynamic -as in, making comebacks possible, surprising opponents, appearing weaker than you really are, etc. I just love the mind games! I´d just like to see where this all leads!

Another high-level decision for which I could use feedback
Given that, as I have repeated in this thread, the game should cater also to ladder players, and given that I can´t compete with 1v1 SC2 melee, I was wondering if I should focus on delivering the best experience possible for the 2v2 format. This is, approaching the design of the map and its size, number of neutral buildings, etc, with 2v2 games in mind. I can imagine melee players taking a break to play this game 2v2 with a friend, but maybe not so much 1v1. What do you guys think? Is melee 2v2 played a lot? is there a niche I can fill by focusing on 2v2?
adso
Profile Joined March 2011
718 Posts
March 24 2011 22:34 GMT
#20
i think both 1v1 and 2v2 are valid targets...
Layout is the only drawback/difficulty if you want 1 map to cater to both at once.

I'd say the mod could be good for 1v1 "ladder relaxation"
and
if it gets players...
it will be even better for 2v2...
(getting 3 players for a 4 game is more difficult than finding 1 player)
Waiting in a lobby is awful (bratchannel is compulsory)
1 2 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 45m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nathanias 540
UpATree 149
Forgg! 59
StarCraft: Brood War
Shuttle 1624
Jaeyun 160
yabsab 23
Terrorterran 16
IntoTheRainbow 9
Dota 2
qojqva6353
Dendi4345
canceldota328
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
fl0m2186
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox1761
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu724
Other Games
Grubby2648
shahzam2192
JimRising 479
byalli448
febbydoto23
HitmanStarcraft222
ROOTCatZ14
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick5090
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
ESL CS:GO387
Dota 2
BeyondTheSummit338
StarCraft 2
OGamingTV SC2 161
Other Games
BasetradeTV51
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
[ Show 21 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• SteadfastSC357
• musti20045 29
• Adnapsc2 14
• Gussbus
• Migwel
• Alpha X_
• aXEnki
• Poblha
• intothetv
• CSOeSports
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamez Trovo
• Laughngamez YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
• sscaitournament2
• STPLYoutube
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Froggen1956
Other Games
• imaqtpie2196
• Shiphtur1353
Upcoming Events
ESL Pro Tour
45m
KCM Race Survival
11h 45m
DPC 2021/2022 Tour 3
20h 45m
Evil Geniuses vs TBD
OSC
21h 45m
TeamLiquid StarLeague
1d 12h
TeamLiquid StarLeague
2 days
TeamLiquid StarLeague
3 days
TeamLiquid StarLeague
4 days
TeamLiquid StarLeague
4 days
TeamLiquid StarLeague
4 days
[ Show More ]
ESL Pro Tour
5 days
TeamLiquid StarLeague
5 days
TeamLiquid StarLeague
5 days
TeamLiquid StarLeague
5 days
ESL Pro Tour
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2022 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
DH Masters Valencia
X-Cup Summer 2022 - Qual. 5
ESL Challenger Valencia 2022

Ongoing

BSL Season 15: GosuLeague
Luck Over Strength
STL37
RCG 2021
KCM Ladies Race Survival 2022 Season 2
Nine-Tathlon Invitational
HoneyCai Friendlies Season 4
GAN Race Survival Season 4
CWCL Season 4
FS Mania
Big Baby Popularity Contest
KCM Race Survival 2022 Season 2
BSL Season 15
Deathfate Pro Team League
TOP Challenge Qualifier
WTL 2022 Summer
2022 GSL S2: Code S
StarCraft II: NationWars 7
Community Clash League S4
X-Cup Summer 2022 - Quals.
Masters Clash Champ. 2022

Upcoming

Deathfate Pro Team League 2: Qualifier
Future Cup 4 (U18)
NiuPi Cup CN vs KR 1: Mihu vs Mighty
TOP Challenge
2022 ACS Season 2
NiuPi Cup 7: Soma vs sOrry
WSL Season 3
IEM Katowice 2023
2022 GSL: ST 2
DH Masters Atlanta
2022 GSL S3: Code S
TSL 9
HomeStory Cup XXI
X-Cup Summer 2022
X-Cup Summer 2022 - Qual. 10
X-Cup Summer 2022 - Qual. 9
X-Cup Summer 2022 - Qual. 8
X-Cup Summer 2022 - Qual. 7
X-Cup Summer 2022 - Qual. 6
IEM Rio Major 2022
ESL Challenger Melbourne 2022
ESL Pro League Season 16
BLAST Premier Fall Groups
ESL Challenger League S42 NA
ESL Challenger League S42 EU
ESL Challenger League S42 AP
IEM Cologne 2022
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 © 2022 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.