• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 04:36
CET 10:36
KST 18:36
  • 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 ZvT25Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book17Clem wins HomeStory Cup 289HomeStory Cup 28 - Info & Preview13Rongyi Cup S3 - Preview & Info8
Community News
Weekly Cups (Feb 9-15): herO doubles up2ACS replaced by "ASL Season Open" - Starts 21/0241LiuLi Cup: 2025 Grand Finals (Feb 10-16)46Weekly Cups (Feb 2-8): Classic, Solar, MaxPax win2Nexon's StarCraft game could be FPS, led by UMS maker16
StarCraft 2
General
Behind the Blue - Team Liquid History Book ByuL: The Forgotten Master of ZvT Liquipedia WCS Portal Launched Kaelaris on the futue of SC2 and much more... How do you think the 5.0.15 balance patch (Oct 2025) for StarCraft II has affected the game?
Tourneys
PIG STY FESTIVAL 7.0! (19 Feb - 1 Mar) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) How do the "codes" work in GSL? LiuLi Cup: 2025 Grand Finals (Feb 10-16)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ? [A] Starcraft Sound Mod
External Content
Mutation # 514 Ulnar New Year The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 513 Attrition Warfare Mutation # 512 Overclocked
Brood War
General
Do you consider PvZ imbalanced? A new season just kicks off A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone Recent recommended BW games BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
Escore Tournament StarCraft Season 1 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 1
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Zealot bombing is no longer popular? Fighting Spirit mining rates Current Meta
Other Games
General Games
Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread Diablo 2 thread Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread Path of Exile
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
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 Mexico's Drug War Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Ask and answer stupid questions here!
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club The herO 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
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
ASL S21 English Commentary…
namkraft
Inside the Communication of …
TrAiDoS
My 2025 Magic: The Gathering…
DARKING
Life Update and thoughts.
FuDDx
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2172 users

A saturation-based discussion on workers' inherent intelli…

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next All
Knee_of_Justice
Profile Joined October 2009
United States388 Posts
January 04 2010 19:07 GMT
#41
Which is why most people dont use them. But the option is there.

I dont think blizz should determine which strats are "good" and which are "bad." Im not suggesting they are consciously trying to minimize the possibilities of these strats but they are unconsciously with things like better workers and autoblock ramps.

Im also not saying that "just because it was in BW, it HAS to be in SC2" but I am trying to indicate that the game should be as flexible as possible: if a person wants to go for an ultra fast zergling rush, knowing that their chances of winning are suspect, thats still a risk the player can take.

Making it EZPZ for terran to block their ramp kind of minimizes a certain type of play. Smarter workers also minimizes that type of play. Im sure new strategies with the new cliff-jumping units will emerge for raiding early game, but it just seems... frustrating... that zerg rushes are lining up to be less effective and that ANY rush against (a good) terran will be ineffective.

Again, yes, rushes suck and should by no means be foolproof, but i dont think their counters should be foolproof either.

Overall though, i dont think many people are overly worried about this issue.
Protoss Tactical Guide: http://www.sc2armory.com/forums/topic/7903
n00bonicPlague
Profile Joined August 2008
United States197 Posts
January 04 2010 19:38 GMT
#42
Regarding saturation, I remember the devs saying that they were making a point of designing the most efficient worker/patch ratio to be exactly 2:1 Also, as others have mentioned, the smarter AI — particularly "auto-split" — will make diminishing returns less...well, diminishing.
Beta = 04/01/10
tedster
Profile Joined May 2009
984 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-04 20:17:05
January 04 2010 20:04 GMT
#43
Strangely enough the worker changes (assuming the 2xPatch worker saturation we're talking about here) will result in drastic changes of how Maynarding and early expanding works. An individual worker is now significantly less efficient than in BW (~37% reduction in mining per "travel" interlude) even though workers past the 1-per-patch maintain the same efficiency to compensate (unlike in BW).

This means that it takes a new expansion significantly longer to produce results without transferring workers. Whereas in BW the first 7-9 workers were far more valuable than the following 7-9, in SC2 each of the first 14-18 workers share the same level of efficiency. This means an expansion will scale linearly from workers, as opposed to the non-linear charts that have been posted on this board in the past.

At the same time, Maynarding from your main when your main has approximately ~2 workers/patch will no longer be viable. That's right - you will LOSE money in the maynarding process that will NOT be recouped by sending workers to a fresh expansion. In fact, it's far more efficient (in terms of how quickly you get the same amount of money) to simply rally your main CC to your expansion and pump workers off that way (once you've maxxed out at ~2/patch at the main) than to cut away from your mining force at all.

Essentially, unless you have more than ~2 workers/patch, you should not Maynard at all. If you do have more, you should Maynard exactly down to ~2 workers/patch at your main, and no more.

So what practical impact does this have on the game? Well, first off, it discourages early expansion in response to aggression. Why is this the case? Well, statistically, it takes longer to recoup the cost of an expansion and to gain an economic advantage since an individual worker produces less minerals in the same amount of time. The end result in minerals/minute will be approximately the same from a fully-loaded expo, but the expansion's production will scale slower and anything less than near-full saturation will give less minerals/minute than an equivalent expo in BW. Thus, a situation like you often find in BW with early expansions, where the economic advantage can carry a game if the greedy player holds off early aggression, will take longer to realize.

Now, there's another mitigating factor that still has to be considered: increased worker production can help reach the saturation point quicker. Since we're working on the assumption that the second "set" of workers can now produce about as efficiently as the first, this second wave of workers becomes situationally more valuable than in BW. Thus, the true benefit of the expansion may be more its ability to produce more workers, faster, than its function as a second mining base - which will be especially important when a player pushes to take a 3rd and is able to do a full 2xPatches worker transfer without cutting into active 2x worker force. It may even be valuable to rally extra workers past the 2xPatch mark to sit idle, off to the side of the new expo, so Maynarding will be as fast and efficient as possible without cutting into production. It will take a lot more math and time comparisons to determine exactly how much this "faster worker production" figures into the economic advantages offered by an early expo, and if this can make up for the lesser immediate financial impact it will now have.

Of course, maybe the targeted macro mechanic will totally offset the lesser value of an expo rendering half this analysis moot =]
the last wcs commissioner
DeCoup
Profile Joined September 2006
Australia1933 Posts
January 04 2010 23:33 GMT
#44
Exellent post tedster. It will be interesting to see what the increase is in minerals per min for excess of 2 workers per vein too, but I guess that will have to wait for beta.
"Poor guy. I really did not deserve that win. So this is what it's like to play Protoss..." - IdrA
tedster
Profile Joined May 2009
984 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-04 23:52:44
January 04 2010 23:46 GMT
#45
On January 05 2010 08:33 DeCoup wrote:
Exellent post tedster. It will be interesting to see what the increase is in minerals per min for excess of 2 workers per vein too, but I guess that will have to wait for beta.


I'm really hoping they change the timing a little or something because it would upset me to see a neat mechanic like worker transfer be unnecessary in SC2, but based on the 2xPatch saturation that we're seeing and the lack of "overflow" it's looking to be the case at the moment. I hope Blizzard has considered this and I'm pondering posting something about it on their boards because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

I also don't like the idea of having a "max saturation point" for workers such as you see in, say, Warcraft 3. By having what seems to be a linear scale with a distinct stopping point, you will ALWAYS have 2xPatches workers at a base, and thus you aren't making any real decisions with regards to "do I pump more workers for a slight eco advantage and transfer them later or am I fine as-is?" questions.
the last wcs commissioner
emikochan
Profile Joined July 2009
United Kingdom232 Posts
January 05 2010 01:43 GMT
#46
Hmm I had no idea about this saturation issue, I guess a fix would be to jimmy the workers a little so saturation is at something like 2.2 workers. so extra aren't completely useless, but it's better to have them at an expo...

Easiest way to do this would be to slightly increase the collision on them, so they'd take a split second longer to reach minerals at higher saturations....imo =p Shouldn't affect much, other than walling slightly easier I guess.

Also, just saying, the new workers produce the same money over time that the current ones do, they had to reduce the collected mins from 8 to 5 to stop them collecting too much with the improved pathing. So basically rather than collecting 37.5% less, they have 37.5% better pathing =p
Probes need love too.
Drunken.Jedi
Profile Joined June 2009
Germany446 Posts
January 05 2010 02:34 GMT
#47
On January 05 2010 04:07 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
Which is why most people dont use them. But the option is there.

I dont think blizz should determine which strats are "good" and which are "bad." Im not suggesting they are consciously trying to minimize the possibilities of these strats but they are unconsciously with things like better workers and autoblock ramps.

Well, you're not forced to use those "coinflip strategies", but if your oponent wants to flip the coin you're still along for the ride. You can of course go for a safe opening, but that leaves you vulnerable to risky economic openings like 14 cc or 12/13/14 nexus.

Of course Blizzard has to decide what sort of strategies they want to encourage. After all they are designing the game, so obviously every design decision they make influences what strategies will be viable. And making strategies that turn Starcraft into a game of chance less viable is IMO definitely desireable.
Knee_of_Justice
Profile Joined October 2009
United States388 Posts
January 05 2010 05:22 GMT
#48
Its not quite the coin flip youre making it out to be. Anticipation and scouting play into how you respond to rushes. The game may not reach, say, carriers, and in that sense you are right: they are dictating the game to an extent, but the game isnt out of your control. Its just another build you have to counter somehow, and that takes skill, scouting and anticipation.

You could also make the point that better workers = more control = less randomness: workers will do what you tell them and wont be retarded, but that will affect the game in other ways.

I just think blizzard should pay lots of attention to these types of early game strategies since they add flavor to the game (even if they arent always desirable). Its just something else for them to consider.
Protoss Tactical Guide: http://www.sc2armory.com/forums/topic/7903
errol1001
Profile Joined April 2008
454 Posts
January 06 2010 03:59 GMT
#49
On January 05 2010 08:46 tedster wrote:
I'm really hoping they change the timing a little or something because it would upset me to see a neat mechanic like worker transfer be unnecessary in SC2, but based on the 2xPatch saturation that we're seeing and the lack of "overflow" it's looking to be the case at the moment. I hope Blizzard has considered this and I'm pondering posting something about it on their boards because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.


I noticed this 2xpatch saturation probably a year ago, whenever the first videos featuring sc progamers came out. And I sat there, figuring someone would post something about it but it never happened and I finally posted something. I kind of figured that important people at Blizzard read these forums anyway, but I don't know how much it matters.

In other words, they must be aware of what they have done with respect to mining. it looks like a very intentional decision. The mining time/worker speed/mineral distances/worker ai have been chosen such that it exactly caps at 2 workers for a far patch, and workers don't go looking for new patches when they go to a near patch (so 2 workers caps short patches too because they aren't dumb). There are some bonuses to it too, I guess - any expansion is going to have the exact same mineral income when it is saturated now, provided the number of patches are the same. Anyway, as I think they are aware and have thought about it, I doubt they will change anything unless there were to be a big uprising like with MBS. And I doubt that has any chance of happening before beta (look at this thread - no real uprising, people are unsurprisingly apathetic since sc2 has been delayed so much)..

I don't like the 'linear' scaling. One thing though. Scaling isn't totally linear. When saturated, every patch provides equal mineral income. But when there is only one worker to a patch, the nearer patches are going to give more minerals (& note there are probably only 3 or so 'near' patches at an expansion..). Still pretty damn linear..

You came to pretty much the same conclusions I did. The new mechanics are very precise and easy to understand and very simple.. I am not sure if I will enjoy watching games of SC2 where the logic behind expanding, behind denying expansions, etc, is very formulaic.

Very well written post, thanks for adding your thoughts.
tedster
Profile Joined May 2009
984 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-06 07:16:06
January 06 2010 07:12 GMT
#50
On January 05 2010 10:43 emikochan wrote:
Also, just saying, the new workers produce the same money over time that the current ones do, they had to reduce the collected mins from 8 to 5 to stop them collecting too much with the improved pathing. So basically rather than collecting 37.5% less, they have 37.5% better pathing =p


If this is the case, then a new expansion will produce the same amount of minerals overall as it did in BW (assuming the same number of drones, up to a point), but compared to production at the main it not provide the same "boost" that a BW expansion does. Since Maynarding the second set of workers does not actually produce more efficient mining (and in fact will cost minerals in the short term without a long-term gain) you're not going to see an economic advantage until the new workers you produce to work the new expansion pay themselves back.

It's a far cry from BW, where you would start to see results from transferring even a few workers within the first 30 seconds (!!!) with the increase in productivity being equivalent to the cost of the CC in the first 60-90. So while a BW expansion may not gain more minerals in absolute terms than an SC2 expansion, we're still looking at a bigger overall economic boost as a % of immediate total production.

Not intrinsically a bad thing, but definitely structured to encourage 1-base play more than BW was. Also encourages rushes and early all-in strategies in response to expansions as it will take longer to get ahead for the expandee, giving a larger timing window.
the last wcs commissioner
Grendor
Profile Joined September 2009
United States70 Posts
January 06 2010 10:32 GMT
#51
On January 05 2010 03:27 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
What you have to keep in mind though, is that SC2's equivalent to 9 pool is probably going to be 10 pool, 10 ovie, 13 queen, which should get the first batch of zerglings out slightly faster, while having better production capabilities and more flexibility than a 10 hatch, 9 pool.
This really more than makes up for better worker AI.

However, it's true that 6/7 pool will probably be a lot less viable in sc2 than 4/5 pool is in Broodwar, but I don't think that's a bad thing. 4/5 pool very often leads to a build order win or a build order loss, which are bad for a competitive game.


This is the build I did at PAX to win my beta key <3!!!!
Larvae injection ftw.
errol1001
Profile Joined April 2008
454 Posts
January 09 2010 23:33 GMT
#52
IdrA vs NonY TSL related spoiler:
+ Show Spoiler +

When NonY lost his natural on Outsider, his income dropped to ~1k minerals, while IdrA, on 2 bosses, was earning ~1.3k. NonY lost anyway, but how bad could it be in starcraft 2, if income is cut directly in half in that situation? 650 minerals instead of 1000.. 650 minerals against an opponent with 1300 income?
DeCoup
Profile Joined September 2006
Australia1933 Posts
January 10 2010 00:00 GMT
#53
This actually might add some additional strategy because of the lack of benifit that an overly saturated base provides.
- When both my main and expo are fully saturated do I cut worker production because the benifit is so low if I am not intending to expand soon? Or do I build extra workers to counter the losses of worker harass? - Risk vs potential gain (potential lowering of losses)
- I just scouted Terrans base and noticed that he is fully saturated but is still pumping probes he is probably planning on expanding and will be slightly lighter on military for the next few mins while he continues to pump probes. - New timing windows

I also would like to point out that there will still be a mineral gain for having more than 2 workers per mineral. The major change is that there is no diminishing returns UNTIL the point where you have 2 workers per base. Yes the returns for additional workers will be very low, but having 3 per mineral will still net more returns.
"Poor guy. I really did not deserve that win. So this is what it's like to play Protoss..." - IdrA
ProoM
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
Lithuania1741 Posts
January 10 2010 00:22 GMT
#54
On January 01 2010 10:51 errol1001 wrote:
In Starcraft, there is no clear 'optimal' number of miners per mineral patch.
Thoughts?

Yes there is, it's 3. 24 workers on 8 mineral patches is considered the best/most efficient saturation :}.
IMBA - International Mountain Bicycling Association.
tedster
Profile Joined May 2009
984 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-10 00:28:06
January 10 2010 00:27 GMT
#55
On January 10 2010 09:00 DeCoup wrote:
This actually might add some additional strategy because of the lack of benifit that an overly saturated base provides.
- When both my main and expo are fully saturated do I cut worker production because the benifit is so low if I am not intending to expand soon? Or do I build extra workers to counter the losses of worker harass? - Risk vs potential gain (potential lowering of losses)
- I just scouted Terrans base and noticed that he is fully saturated but is still pumping probes he is probably planning on expanding and will be slightly lighter on military for the next few mins while he continues to pump probes. - New timing windows

I also would like to point out that there will still be a mineral gain for having more than 2 workers per mineral. The major change is that there is no diminishing returns UNTIL the point where you have 2 workers per base. Yes the returns for additional workers will be very low, but having 3 per mineral will still net more returns.


I think you're misunderstanding a bit about how this will impact the game. It's not that an oversaturated base will matter less - you're still going to see a lot of workers at each base, with extras left over for future expos - but the issue is more that expansions give less of an immediate boost, especially when they are lightly saturated. That's the major balance change - not that an oversaturated base isn't viable, but that a lightly saturated expo is not as valuable compared to the saturated main.

This is a much bigger change to what "light saturation" means to a game state than to what "heavy saturation" means.
the last wcs commissioner
errol1001
Profile Joined April 2008
454 Posts
January 10 2010 03:22 GMT
#56
On January 10 2010 09:00 DeCoup wrote:
This actually might add some additional strategy because of the lack of benifit that an overly saturated base provides.
- When both my main and expo are fully saturated do I cut worker production because the benifit is so low if I am not intending to expand soon? Or do I build extra workers to counter the losses of worker harass? - Risk vs potential gain (potential lowering of losses)
- I just scouted Terrans base and noticed that he is fully saturated but is still pumping probes he is probably planning on expanding and will be slightly lighter on military for the next few mins while he continues to pump probes. - New timing windows

I also would like to point out that there will still be a mineral gain for having more than 2 workers per mineral. The major change is that there is no diminishing returns UNTIL the point where you have 2 workers per base. Yes the returns for additional workers will be very low, but having 3 per mineral will still net more returns.


Have you actually looked at what the workers do in videos? You say 'having 3 per mineral will still net more returns', and I say 'Yes, you might get 1% more minerals for having 50% more workers'. You make it sound as if having more than 2 per patch will be meaningful. It hardly looks that way.
MiniRoman
Profile Blog Joined September 2003
Canada3953 Posts
January 10 2010 05:01 GMT
#57
Having excess workers is one of the best way to fend of a harass. If you only have like 16 workers and get storm dropped and suddently have 6, it's gonna take a long time to replace what has lost. You will also be illprepared for saturating an expansion. Late game, sure it would help increase max army size but there are more reasons than bad AI to make a lot of workers.
Nak Allstar.
tedster
Profile Joined May 2009
984 Posts
January 10 2010 07:54 GMT
#58
On January 10 2010 14:01 MiniRoman wrote:
Having excess workers is one of the best way to fend of a harass. If you only have like 16 workers and get storm dropped and suddently have 6, it's gonna take a long time to replace what has lost. You will also be illprepared for saturating an expansion. Late game, sure it would help increase max army size but there are more reasons than bad AI to make a lot of workers.


But if those workers aren't paying for themselves in the meantime it's better to just get static defense/more troops to fend off the harass with the same money.
the last wcs commissioner
spinesheath
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Germany8679 Posts
January 10 2010 10:50 GMT
#59
Also if you have more workers at your mineral line, more of them will die to storms. So if you are producing excess workers you should seriously consider NOT letting them harvest if you don't gain more minerals from it.
If you have a good reason to disagree with the above, please tell me. Thank you.
Karel
Profile Joined September 2007
France28 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-01-10 14:14:55
January 10 2010 14:12 GMT
#60
On January 06 2010 12:59 errol1001 wrote:
I don't like the 'linear' scaling. One thing though. Scaling isn't totally linear. When saturated, every patch provides equal mineral income. But when there is only one worker to a patch, the nearer patches are going to give more minerals (& note there are probably only 3 or so 'near' patches at an expansion..). Still pretty damn linear..


You're right. But it shows too that the problem is very easy to fix (if Blizz decides that it has to be fixed). You could generalize the "nearer patches mechanic" by introducing a very small cooldown (let's say 0.1 or 0.2 sec) on mineral patches, without changing the workers AI. As a result the second worker per patch will not yield the same amount than the first; reintroducing the interesting oversaturating-maynarding process.

On January 06 2010 12:59 errol1001 wrote:
You came to pretty much the same conclusions I did. The new mechanics are very precise and easy to understand and very simple.. I am not sure if I will enjoy watching games of SC2 where the logic behind expanding, behind denying expansions, etc, is very formulaic.


From the spectator's point of view (which is largely mine) I think the main problem is not the formulaic shape of expansions making/denying (I'm not sure that it will look like formulaic in the meddle of the battle). It's more than maynarding and managing saturation of bases is one of the most visual part of macro, the most easy to follow and understand as a spectator.

Getting read of the so-called "mindless clicking" part of the macro is quite controversial, but removing that kind of highly refined and strategically oriented macro-managing is a bad idea entertainment-wise.

edit: wording: I'm not a native english speaker at all...
“there’s really no such thing as ‘voiceless.’ there are only the deliberately silenced, or preferably unheard” Arundhati Roy
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
09:00
PiGosaur Cup #65
CranKy Ducklings70
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
SortOf 135
StarCraft: Brood War
Larva 377
Barracks 293
Jaedong 274
Rush 194
ZerO 174
Dewaltoss 111
Pusan 86
JulyZerg 83
Killer 72
Noble 41
[ Show more ]
soO 28
Light 25
Hm[arnc] 20
Terrorterran 4
Dota 2
XaKoH 656
NeuroSwarm142
League of Legends
JimRising 515
Counter-Strike
byalli1632
Stewie2K1178
olofmeister993
m0e_tv489
allub253
zeus168
edward112
Other Games
B2W.Neo548
Happy316
crisheroes196
NotJumperer15
ZerO(Twitch)6
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 86
• LUISG 15
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
2h 24m
Monday Night Weeklies
7h 24m
OSC
14h 24m
WardiTV Winter Champion…
1d 2h
Replay Cast
1d 23h
WardiTV Winter Champion…
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
[ Show More ]
SC Evo Complete
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-02-22
LiuLi Cup: 2025 Grand Finals
Underdog Cup #3

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 1
Acropolis #4 - TS5
WardiTV Winter 2026
PiG Sty Festival 7.0
Nations Cup 2026
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual
eXTREMESLAND 2025
SL Budapest Major 2025

Upcoming

Jeongseon Sooper Cup
Spring Cup 2026
[S:21] ASL SEASON OPEN 2nd Round
[S:21] ASL SEASON OPEN 2nd Round Qualifier
Acropolis #4 - TS6
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
RSL Revival: Season 4
PGL Astana 2026
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
CCT Season 3 Global Finals
FISSURE Playground #3
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League Season 23
ESL Pro League Season 23
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.