• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 20:01
CEST 02:01
KST 09:01
  • 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 202530RSL Season 1 - Final Week8[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 teams2Weekly 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 Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Corsair Pursuit Micro?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread BWCL Season 63 Announcement
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread [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
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
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: 636 users

Patch 7 Notes - Page 29

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next All
DM20
Profile Joined September 2008
Canada544 Posts
March 31 2010 12:11 GMT
#561
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote:
Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect.
So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.



25% distance to transverse a storm nerf.
45% area nerf.

The true number is somewhere in between.
Klockan3
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
Sweden2866 Posts
March 31 2010 12:16 GMT
#562
On March 31 2010 21:11 DM20 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote:
Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect.
So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.



25% distance to transverse a storm nerf.
45% area nerf.

The true number is somewhere in between.

You also get to take into account that players do not react instantly so 25% less radius do not mean that they take 25% less damage due to moving out of the area in 25% less time. I would say that the nerf is very close to 25%, not to say that a 25% nerf isn't huge though!
DrainX
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
Sweden3187 Posts
March 31 2010 12:19 GMT
#563
On March 31 2010 21:03 Yamoth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote:
A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.


Dude, what ever crack you are on I want some.

To make full use of the aoe of a spell the entire area should cover units with no free space in between. It's much easier to make full use of a smaller area than a larger one. The larger the area of effect gets the more free space you will inevitably hit. How is that hard to understand?
rtano
Profile Joined March 2010
Sweden28 Posts
March 31 2010 12:20 GMT
#564
On March 31 2010 20:54 GoDannY wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 20:48 rtano wrote:
To many people moves to fast to conclusions....

IF the changes create imbalances, thats totally fine. Cause this is BETA. Blizzard trying out things is good. It would be a lot worse if they didnt, considering the gameplay to be already perfected. Furthermore imbalances force people to try out new strategies, and new patches will definitively change things around again anyway...


And to give people and developers an idea what is wrong they need to know - and that's where the complaining comes in....

loop di doo


And thats why I wrote:

On March 31 2010 20:48 rtano wrote:
Its still open to see how this plays out but please do so before screaming...


mfukar
Profile Joined December 2009
Greece41 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-31 12:22:34
March 31 2010 12:20 GMT
#565
On March 31 2010 21:11 DrainX wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:00 mfukar wrote:
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote:
A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.

No, it increases by a quadratic degree (area = π * radius^2).

area =/= effectiveness
radius =/= effectiveness
If you're suggesting that effectiveness is independent of a spell's radius (meaning a spell covering 0 area could still be effective somehow), then you are quite simply wrong.

Also, I didn't state they are "==". I pointed out the relationship. See the difference?
DM20
Profile Joined September 2008
Canada544 Posts
March 31 2010 12:21 GMT
#566
On March 31 2010 21:16 Klockan3 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:11 DM20 wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote:
Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect.
So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.



25% distance to transverse a storm nerf.
45% area nerf.

The true number is somewhere in between.

You also get to take into account that players do not react instantly so 25% less radius do not mean that they take 25% less damage due to moving out of the area in 25% less time. I would say that the nerf is very close to 25%, not to say that a 25% nerf isn't huge though!


No, reaction time is a player variable.
DrainX
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
Sweden3187 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-31 12:25:48
March 31 2010 12:22 GMT
#567
On March 31 2010 21:20 mfukar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:11 DrainX wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:00 mfukar wrote:
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote:
A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.

No, it increases by a quadratic degree (area = π * radius^2).

area =/= effectiveness
radius =/= effectiveness
If you're suggesting that effectiveness is independent of a spell's radius (meaning a spell covering 0 area could still be effective somehow), then you are quite simply wrong.

Also, I didn't state they are "==". I pointed out the relationship. See the difference?

I'm saying that the effectiveness of the spell neither increases linearly with the area of the spell or with the radius of the spell but with some number in between the two.

I am aware of the relation between the area and the radius. My original post however doesn't state anything about them so I was unsure what you meant with your comment.
Klockan3
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
Sweden2866 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-31 12:26:22
March 31 2010 12:25 GMT
#568
On March 31 2010 21:21 DM20 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:16 Klockan3 wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:11 DM20 wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote:
Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect.
So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.



25% distance to transverse a storm nerf.
45% area nerf.

The true number is somewhere in between.

You also get to take into account that players do not react instantly so 25% less radius do not mean that they take 25% less damage due to moving out of the area in 25% less time. I would say that the nerf is very close to 25%, not to say that a 25% nerf isn't huge though!


No, reaction time is a player variable.

Yes, but reaction time is always bigger than zero.

On March 31 2010 21:20 mfukar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:11 DrainX wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:00 mfukar wrote:
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote:
A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.

No, it increases by a quadratic degree (area = π * radius^2).

area =/= effectiveness
radius =/= effectiveness
If you're suggesting that effectiveness is independent of a spell's radius (meaning a spell covering 0 area could still be effective somehow), then you are quite simply wrong.

Also, I didn't state they are "==". I pointed out the relationship. See the difference?

So yamato cannon is worthless?
mfukar
Profile Joined December 2009
Greece41 Posts
March 31 2010 12:28 GMT
#569
On March 31 2010 21:25 Klockan3 wrote:

So yamato cannon is worthless?
In the spirit of our friend DrainX, 1 =/= 0.
Slunk
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Germany768 Posts
March 31 2010 12:31 GMT
#570
On March 31 2010 21:25 Klockan3 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:21 DM20 wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:16 Klockan3 wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:11 DM20 wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote:
Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect.
So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.



25% distance to transverse a storm nerf.
45% area nerf.

The true number is somewhere in between.

You also get to take into account that players do not react instantly so 25% less radius do not mean that they take 25% less damage due to moving out of the area in 25% less time. I would say that the nerf is very close to 25%, not to say that a 25% nerf isn't huge though!


No, reaction time is a player variable.

Yes, but reaction time is always bigger than zero.

Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:20 mfukar wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:11 DrainX wrote:
On March 31 2010 21:00 mfukar wrote:
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote:
A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.

No, it increases by a quadratic degree (area = π * radius^2).

area =/= effectiveness
radius =/= effectiveness
If you're suggesting that effectiveness is independent of a spell's radius (meaning a spell covering 0 area could still be effective somehow), then you are quite simply wrong.

Also, I didn't state they are "==". I pointed out the relationship. See the difference?

So yamato cannon is worthless?


Those spells are totally different. But if you had a fungal growth or a storm with zero radius, this would be pretty much useless if you as me.
Klockan3
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
Sweden2866 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-31 12:33:49
March 31 2010 12:32 GMT
#571
On March 31 2010 21:28 mfukar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 31 2010 21:25 Klockan3 wrote:

So yamato cannon is worthless?
In the spirit of our friend DrainX, 1 =/= 0.

So yamato got radius 1? I never noticed, then it would splash over to marines, no?

But really, any single target spell is effectively radius 0. A unit is hit when its own radius overlaps the spells radius, so if you have 0 radius it just means that you hit the unit if you aim at it.

This do not say that having 0 radius is a good thing, just that it doesn't make a spell useless.
DM20
Profile Joined September 2008
Canada544 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-31 12:36:15
March 31 2010 12:33 GMT
#572

Yes, but reaction time is always bigger than zero.


I know this, but reaction time is determined by the player not the game, we aren't discussing storms used against player X we are just discussing storms by themselves.


Also it would take the same effect pre or post nerf.
Pulimuli
Profile Blog Joined February 2007
Sweden2766 Posts
March 31 2010 12:36 GMT
#573
On March 31 2010 20:05 McCrank wrote:
in a future patch storm will be renamed to lightning bolt and target single unit only :D


rofl that cracked me up
Klockan3
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
Sweden2866 Posts
March 31 2010 12:37 GMT
#574
On March 31 2010 21:33 DM20 wrote:
Show nested quote +

Yes, but reaction time is always bigger than zero.


I know this, but reaction time is determined by the player not the game, we aren't discussing storms used by player X we are just discussing storms by themselves.

Yes we are, how perceptive of you!

However discussing storms damage as if people had instant reaction times to move outside the area means that you are then always overestimating the effects on damage the radius have since reaction time is never zero. As such the damage is not linear with radius. For example if Storm had 0 radius you would still deal a bit of damage to the unit you targeted even though he could move outsisde of it in an instant.
MapleLeafSirup
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany950 Posts
March 31 2010 12:45 GMT
#575
finally zerg can still win even though protoss has templars out
thanks blizzard, i love this patch
DM20
Profile Joined September 2008
Canada544 Posts
March 31 2010 12:47 GMT
#576
Are really arguing that player actions should be taken into account to determine the percent a mechanic of the game was nerfed?
LunarC
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States1186 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-31 12:51:31
March 31 2010 12:47 GMT
#577
Seriously, Blizzard nerfs one of the few elements of Starcraft 2 that make army control a necessary skill.

I don't know if anyone's thought this, but isn't Protoss warp-in such a terrible feature? I mean, look at what the Gateway units have had to go through simply because they can be produced so much faster and at any location with pylon power:

Zealot: 60/100 -> 50/100
Stalker: Still fragile as glass.
Dark Templar: Tech is delayed, more expensive.
High Templar: Psionic Storm nerfed to 80 dmg in 1.5 radius.

It's been nerf after nerf and all the power is going to the Robotics Facility because Warpgates are so damn good at pumping out units.

One solution would be to increase Warpgate cooldown to 45 seconds. The exchange would be warp-in speed for troop mobility. Maybe Gateway units can stand to be a bit stronger with a longer Warpgate cooldown in place.

There's a lack of balance in design I'm noticing in Starcraft 2. Near unlimited unit selection should be balanced with units and abilities that either require skilled army control or force the opponent to skillfully control his army. Yet, most units move virtually the same, units now have counters rather than general effectiveness, and abilities are either impossible to dodge (EMP) or are made easier to dodge (Psionic Storm). Even these abilities are a shadow of their former selves, reducing the need for army control even further.

I think Blizzard has to allow micro to sometimes determine the balance rather than flat statistics and numbers. The first step is to incorporate elements into the game that either allow for more micro or make micro more necessary.

1. Include a method of control that keeps units in formation (like the magic box: a selection box size threshold) or simply have armies move relatively in formation in all instances.
2. Buff Area-Of-Effect abilities and make them dodge-able.
3. More units that rely on good control to be effective. This can be achieved by nerfing hard counters or making them more conditional.

Example: Immortal 150/100. Shield regeneration at 7 per second after not receiving damage for 8 seconds. Move speed is slightly faster than Marines' and Zerglings' off creep.
REEBUH!!!
Dx Fx
Profile Joined March 2010
Russian Federation85 Posts
March 31 2010 13:00 GMT
#578
Psi Storm math:

Range decrease from 2 to 1.5
Rnew/Rold = 1.5/2 = 0.75

Aold = pi*2^2
Anew = pi*1.5^2
Anew/Aold = 1.5^2/2^2 = 2.25/4 = 0.5625

pot. Damage by traveling through the storm by 1 unit of size 1 square and speed 1 square/s by max distanz D=R*2 squares.
Rnew = 1.5 D = 4 -> 80 dmg
Rold = 2 D = 5 -> 80 dmg
Pot. new / Pot. max = eff = 1
Pot. old / Pot. max = eff = 1

For any distance shorter as max distance the new storm is losing eff, while the old one would had still eff 1 for any distance >= 3
Sn!per
Klockan3
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
Sweden2866 Posts
March 31 2010 13:07 GMT
#579
On March 31 2010 21:47 DM20 wrote:
Are really arguing that player actions should be taken into account to determine the percent a mechanic of the game was nerfed?

Of course, otherwise you wouldn't get an accurate figure would you? You use as a standard that both players are very good and then check from that how much effect it have. You can't use that both players are super human 0 reaction time people with perfect micro and macro though, that is just a model which can be very accurate in some cases but is extremely inaccurate in others.

Now since the time it takes to notice the storm, select the effected units and order and them to move to a safe location is hardly negligible compared to how the very short time it takes for units to move outside the storm, even for the best of players. If units auto moved outside of it then it would be useless even in its old version.
Mikami_
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
Estonia274 Posts
March 31 2010 13:11 GMT
#580


I blame orb for patch 7
Prev 1 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 9h 59m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 1074
NaDa 71
Aegong 38
Dota 2
monkeys_forever241
League of Legends
syndereN536
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1342
flusha386
Coldzera 146
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox295
AZ_Axe93
Other Games
tarik_tv8861
Grubby2293
Day[9].tv1124
shahzam567
C9.Mang0282
ViBE207
Maynarde151
Livibee76
Liquid`Ken9
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1211
BasetradeTV30
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• RyuSc2 62
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22278
League of Legends
• Doublelift5201
Other Games
• Scarra1707
• Day9tv1124
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
9h 59m
ByuN vs Zoun
SHIN vs TriGGeR
Cyan vs ShoWTimE
Rogue vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs Solar
Reynor vs Maru
herO vs Cure
Serral vs Classic
Esports World Cup
1d 9h
Esports World Cup
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
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
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
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
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
IEM Cologne 2025
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.