• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:43
CEST 20:43
KST 03:43
  • 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
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China10Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL70
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread RSL Season 1 - Final Week TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Server Blocker
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone Script to open stream directly using middle click ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 Last Minute Live-Report Thread Resource!
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5 Nintendo Switch Thread
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
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 730 users

A serious Armor-Types Discussion Redux

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
1 2 Next All
SichuanPanda
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada1542 Posts
April 06 2010 20:15 GMT
#1
Re-topic. Perhaps we can actually discuss this instead of have people flame me without providing their own suggestions. As per my other post, I want to discuss the armor types in SC2. I do not want to discuss BW armor types, I do not want to compare BW to SC2. What I want is a serious discussion on the state of armor types in SC2. There is only TWO armor types. If Blizzard intends to use an armor-type system, there needs to be more than two types.

I posted my suggestion and all I got was trolls pointing out stupid information that I already knew (like the real damage Marauders do - guess what 20 damage was an EXAMPLE). People really need to stop taking the first opportunity possible to flame, and actually read what I said. If you don't like the armor types I suggested, come up with something else, but do not sit there and try to defend Blizzard's blatantly poorly though-out two armor system in SC2.

My proposal is simple.

Implement a new armor type for buildings and a new armor type for siege type units. Now for those of you who wish to provide your own take on what should be done with armor-types please feel free to reply. I want to have a real discussion on armor types here, not a flame war.
i-bonjwa
spinesheath
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Germany8679 Posts
April 06 2010 20:17 GMT
#2
Seems like the topic got deleted or something while I wrote up this, so let me paste it here:


It might be a good thing to have more than 2 damage values for 1 unit (base and base + bonus). But it wouldn't make sense to implement it so that the unit deals less than base damage to some targets. Instead it could be like this:
base damage: 5
bonus vs light: 3
bonus vs armored: 7
Which is much more consistent.

In fact some units already have more than 2 damage values:
Baneling:
base damage: 20
bonus vs light: 15
bonus vs structure: 60
That's because banelings have a seperate attack for buildings. Ultralisks also have one, but afaik they deal normal damage. Yes it's a different attack with different animation etc, but the result is the same, Ultralisks have bonus damage against buildings.

SC2 has way more than 2 armor types. One unit can have several types. There are:
Light
Armored
Biological
Psionic
Structure
Massive
Did I miss one? Dunno... Yeah those modifiers don't really sound like armor types but as far as game mechanics are concerned they are. Archons deal bonus damage to biological for example.
Most units have either light or armored, but some units (Queen) don't.

Technically Blizzard has the option to tweak damage similar to what you want, but this just hasn't been used a lot yet.
If you have a good reason to disagree with the above, please tell me. Thank you.
CursOr
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United States6335 Posts
April 06 2010 20:20 GMT
#3
WC3 has:
Hero Armor, Heavy Armor, Medium, Light Armor,Unarmored, Fortified (buildings)

Attacks were:
Normal, Piercing, Siege, Chaos, Magic and Hero

I don't want a game that is just trying to memorize what units do damage to what, extra to this, reduced to that... for days and days.

Though, in support of your idea, making 3 attack types, and 3 armor types may be easier to balance than just Light vs Armored because, as in RTS, 3 seems much easier to balance than 4 or 5... in terms of races, and I would imagine the same balancing issues would affect armor types.
CJ forever (-_-(-_-(-_-(-_-)-_-)-_-)-_-)
SichuanPanda
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada1542 Posts
April 06 2010 20:21 GMT
#4
Yea good point. I know there is actually more than two armor types, but since most units only get bonuses to +light and +armored exist those become effectively the only two that matter. Still I think that Blizzard needs to take a serious look at Armor-Types because I'm sure that slight tweeks in that area it could fix a lot of the things that seem like unit-specific imbalances.
i-bonjwa
SichuanPanda
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada1542 Posts
April 06 2010 20:24 GMT
#5
On April 07 2010 05:20 cursor wrote:
WC3 has:
Hero Armor, Heavy Armor, Medium, Light Armor,Unarmored, Fortified (buildings)

Attacks were:
Normal, Piercing, Siege, Chaos, Magic and Hero

I don't want a game that is just trying to memorize what units do damage to what, extra to this, reduced to that... for days and days.

Though, in support of your idea, making 3 attack types, and 3 armor types may be easier to balance than just Light vs Armored because, as in RTS, 3 seems much easier to balance than 4 or 5... in terms of races, and I would imagine the same balancing issues would affect armor types.


Well despite what a lot of people think of War3 I actually liked the way it forced specific micro mechanics related to the armor-types. However I do agree that for SC it probably wouldn't be the best to have so many types. The real issue I have with the current system is that it seems like Blizzard is trying to use a WC3-esque system, and simply missed the goal. Sure we all love the hard-counter system because there is clear choices of X unit beats X unit, but without the soft counter side of things too (viable soft counters that is) battles seem to really lack depth.
i-bonjwa
uhlyk
Profile Joined February 2010
Slovakia36 Posts
April 06 2010 20:30 GMT
#6
for sure there will be a unit with bonus dmg vs psionic... i mean in on of the two datadisks...
arb
Profile Blog Joined April 2008
Noobville17921 Posts
April 06 2010 20:32 GMT
#7
should just go back to the original..

example-
base damage 20
vs heavy 20
medium 15
light 10

really was a better system
Artillery spawned from the forges of Hell
zazen
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
Brazil695 Posts
April 06 2010 20:33 GMT
#8
I just wish Zerg had something that dealt bonus dmg against armored so we could kill buildings easy mode too.

I mean, Immortals 3-shot spine crawlers and Marauders just LOL at them.
"The quest for nexus has brought many men of genius to insanity... HUEHUEHUE!"
yomi
Profile Blog Joined June 2004
United States773 Posts
April 06 2010 20:39 GMT
#9
A third armor type might be a good idea. I think the real problem with the implementation of bonus damage is that many of the units are taking it too far and it begins to feel artificial and force extreme hard counters. In BW the maximum bonus or penalty was 50% damage. Now we are seeing units do more than double their normal damage to certain armor types. Helion, Baneling, Immortal, are some of the units that come to mind right away.
Jyvblamo
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Canada13788 Posts
April 06 2010 20:41 GMT
#10
On April 07 2010 05:33 zazen wrote:
I just wish Zerg had something that dealt bonus dmg against armored so we could kill buildings easy mode too.

I mean, Immortals 3-shot spine crawlers and Marauders just LOL at them.

Immortals don't 3-shot spine crawlers, what are you smoking?
SichuanPanda
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada1542 Posts
April 06 2010 20:45 GMT
#11
Some good points. Yea Zazen I agree Zerg's only options for building damage are A. really massive army B. Banelings or C. Ultralisks. Ultralisks take too long to tech to be really viable vs an early wall-in and Banelings are easily manageable by all three races to prevent damage to buildings. I have no problem with units getting bonuses versus certain units, but a 'hard-counter' system eventually leads to one person massing a unit that doesn't really have a counter (other than the same unit/corresponding unit from a given race). Some units should straight-up own other units, but it shouldn't force the exact same style of play or unit type to counter it. (For example if in PvP mass Immortal is countered by mass Immortals or mass Phoenix/Void Rays, and mass Phoenix/Void Rays is countered by mass Phoenix/Void Rays with slightly better micro....)
i-bonjwa
Black Octopi
Profile Joined March 2010
187 Posts
April 06 2010 21:07 GMT
#12
What you are all referring to are not armor types per se, just modifiers (they identify the target). There is no need to add a 3rd modifier since we already have it; its called Structure and there are attacks that are specific anti-structure (reapers, benalings). However the problem is structures all identify as armored as well. I do believe this has been brought up (if not here on b.net).

I wouldn't mind if Siege Tanks and Colosus had a anti-structure attack (for god sake that's how real world tanks work!), but they don't...

In any case its obvious blizzard has placed a lot of either placeholders or cruft. In other words stuff that had a place but still exists after its target purpose spell/unit/etc was removed long ago.

Right now I believe only the following count,
Structure -- Benaling, Nukes, Reapers
Biological -- Ghost Snipe, Archons
Armored -- <you know it>
Light -- <you know it>
Massive -- Corruptors etc
Air -- <you know it>

Orphaned modifiers
-- Psionic
-- Mechanical

Did I miss one?
Excalibur_Z
Profile Joined October 2002
United States12235 Posts
April 06 2010 21:13 GMT
#13
On April 07 2010 05:15 SichuanPanda wrote:
Re-topic. Perhaps we can actually discuss this instead of have people flame me without providing their own suggestions. As per my other post, I want to discuss the armor types in SC2. I do not want to discuss BW armor types, I do not want to compare BW to SC2. What I want is a serious discussion on the state of armor types in SC2. There is only TWO armor types. If Blizzard intends to use an armor-type system, there needs to be more than two types.

I posted my suggestion and all I got was trolls pointing out stupid information that I already knew (like the real damage Marauders do - guess what 20 damage was an EXAMPLE). People really need to stop taking the first opportunity possible to flame, and actually read what I said. If you don't like the armor types I suggested, come up with something else, but do not sit there and try to defend Blizzard's blatantly poorly though-out two armor system in SC2.

My proposal is simple.

Implement a new armor type for buildings and a new armor type for siege type units. Now for those of you who wish to provide your own take on what should be done with armor-types please feel free to reply. I want to have a real discussion on armor types here, not a flame war.


I'm not a troll and I wasn't flaming you. I won't repeat what I said in the previous topic, but I'll advise against reposting locked topics. If you really want to get technical though, Ghosts, Queens and Archons are Psionic (not light or armored) and Biological is a secondary classification against which Archons do bonus damage. There's no real reason to complicate the armor system and unit relationships further without muddying everything.
Moderator
roemy
Profile Joined April 2010
Germany432 Posts
April 06 2010 21:54 GMT
#14
well... having no attribute can be considered an armor type as well.

see archon: he's only psionic atm, which does nothing. so he doesn't receive extra damage from anything - the best armor type one can have :p

so i say remove "armored" from ultralisks to make it more interesting to build than just 4 roaches for the same HP

(and "mechanical" is for SCVs/MULEs to repair - yes that's half the toss arsenal, too)
rock is fine.. paper could need a buff, but scissors have to be nerfed
CharlieMurphy
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
United States22895 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-04-06 22:19:25
April 06 2010 22:09 GMT
#15
The only thing I feel like needs to be changed, is that bldgs should have their own armor/unit type. It's kind of ridiculous to see marauder,immortal, tank, etc. Doing their full damage+bonus damage to bldgs. They die sooooooo fast that it's absurd.

In bw, units that did concussive damage (like ghost/vulture) only did a small amount to structures, other units did their full. In this game it's a bit backwards, everything does full, and some units get bonus vs them, and others don't get their bonus. But everythings' base damage is pretty high to begin with so you don't really have hellions or ghosts doing 4 damage or whatever, they do like 10.

So take something like immortal, which does 20~ +30~ and at a decent DPS, even without being paired with other units it smashes structures hard. And then look at marauders, 10~ +10~ and STIM. They just rip down buildings super fast, 5 of them does 100 damage per volley, and since they are the core of every terran army and cheap he's always gonna be able to snipe a base at any time, or clean up a base after a battle in seconds.

I never really like the idea of units like siege tanks or bat riders in wc3. Taking out structures ultra fast is not really something that lends to competitive play, it just promotes slippery slope and all in/rushing. Stuff like this greatly reduces chances for comebacks or defending because your base dies faster or as fast as your army does. This shouldn't ever be the case imo.

So perhaps buildings should get 'fortified armor' and all units should do 2/3 of their attack or something. Or armored bonuses just ignored and only things doing bonus/alternate damage to structures are units that say so (like blings or ultras).

Also, lots of units in this game just do higher damage/dps in general when compared to bw. And I think that's probably another factor, because bldgs have about the same hp as they did in bw.
..and then I would, ya know, check em'. (Aka SpoR)
SichuanPanda
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada1542 Posts
April 06 2010 23:41 GMT
#16
On April 07 2010 07:09 CharlieMurphy wrote:
The only thing I feel like needs to be changed, is that bldgs should have their own armor/unit type. It's kind of ridiculous to see marauder,immortal, tank, etc. Doing their full damage+bonus damage to bldgs. They die sooooooo fast that it's absurd.

In bw, units that did concussive damage (like ghost/vulture) only did a small amount to structures, other units did their full. In this game it's a bit backwards, everything does full, and some units get bonus vs them, and others don't get their bonus. But everythings' base damage is pretty high to begin with so you don't really have hellions or ghosts doing 4 damage or whatever, they do like 10.

So take something like immortal, which does 20~ +30~ and at a decent DPS, even without being paired with other units it smashes structures hard. And then look at marauders, 10~ +10~ and STIM. They just rip down buildings super fast, 5 of them does 100 damage per volley, and since they are the core of every terran army and cheap he's always gonna be able to snipe a base at any time, or clean up a base after a battle in seconds.

I never really like the idea of units like siege tanks or bat riders in wc3. Taking out structures ultra fast is not really something that lends to competitive play, it just promotes slippery slope and all in/rushing. Stuff like this greatly reduces chances for comebacks or defending because your base dies faster or as fast as your army does. This shouldn't ever be the case imo.

So perhaps buildings should get 'fortified armor' and all units should do 2/3 of their attack or something. Or armored bonuses just ignored and only things doing bonus/alternate damage to structures are units that say so (like blings or ultras).

Also, lots of units in this game just do higher damage/dps in general when compared to bw. And I think that's probably another factor, because bldgs have about the same hp as they did in bw.


I definitely agree with pretty much everything you said. Basically this is my main gripe with the armor-types as well, if unit armor-types never change and remain as they are I wouldn't really be too concerned, however, buildings definitely need a change. I think that either the armor change, or the removal of armored bonuses versus buildings is probably the best solution, without making things overly complicated for casual players.
i-bonjwa
teekesselchen
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Germany886 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-04-07 00:49:05
April 07 2010 00:28 GMT
#17
I think the true problem is not the armor types or bonus damage system itself. As several people already said in several discussions, broodwar also had a system of armor and weapon types.
But in actual gameplay, the pure fact that certain units dealt more or less damage against certain other units did not make them counters as hard as they are now. Look at Vultures for example, they were used in situations when their attack was kinda weak, but they were still important for their mines. Right now, in most situations there are hard counters, often defined by the way they deal damage, and you won't see many units beside those which try to counter other units directly.
(as blizzard said - "There was a lot of muddy gameplay in BW")

The big problem imo is, that battles became reduced to some kind of army-stats-comparison with weak other factors exept for maybe a seeker missile every 0.5% of games or obviously bad positions inside choke points. Thus, I don't think that the discussion about armortypes have to be solved by changing those, but that it's the gameplay itself that forces those army-stats-comparison-battles (ah I start to love this phrase).
For example, right now you can say that marines are easily countered by any race with storms and banelings and so on. If the games were more split up all over the map similar to BW, both would become less of a threat in general because the game is not decided by a few huge battles only in which banelings find the thankful target of a closely stacked bunch of marines.

This is also kinda related to BeMannerDuPenner's post in "Everything kills everything else too fast!" with armies clumping together to big balls making any attempt of micro apart from obvious actions like storms and EMPs and stimpaks obsolete.

When the action was more spread out, people could actually care about the individual unit's strengths and counter them against each other instead of having a-click and the guy with cooler +damage-boni wins.
When they were introduced, he made a witticism, hoping to be liked. She laughed extremely hard, hoping to be liked. Then each drove home alone, staring straight ahead, with the very same twist to their faces.
oxxo
Profile Joined February 2010
988 Posts
April 07 2010 00:35 GMT
#18
As said in other threads... the biggest problem right now is Roach/Immortal/Marauder. They are way out of place and warp any kind of armor balance.
MeditationError
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Australia60 Posts
April 07 2010 01:45 GMT
#19
On April 07 2010 06:07 Black Octopi wrote:
Orphaned modifiers
-- Psionic
-- Mechanical

Mechanical isn't orphaned, it defines what units an scv can repair, like biological determines what units a medivac can heal (probably transfusion too). Scvs, for example are both mechanical and biological and mechanical and can be repaired and healed by a medivac.

I had thought that "psionic" was an armour type that was basically for not having counters, (archon, and to a lesser extent queen).

I'm another one who think it seems odd that every building is armored - are pylons/supply depots, HQs and production buildings, and spine crawlers/bunkers/turrets really all supposed to have the same armour types?
Experience is an excellent teacher, but her fees are very high.
Black Octopi
Profile Joined March 2010
187 Posts
April 07 2010 10:49 GMT
#20
On April 07 2010 10:45 MeditationError wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 07 2010 06:07 Black Octopi wrote:
Orphaned modifiers
-- Psionic
-- Mechanical

Mechanical isn't orphaned, it defines what units an scv can repair, like biological determines what units a medivac can heal (probably transfusion too). Scvs, for example are both mechanical and biological and mechanical and can be repaired and healed by a medivac.

I had thought that "psionic" was an armour type that was basically for not having counters, (archon, and to a lesser extent queen).
I see. Forgot about the SCVs.

Also, Mothership is both Psionic - Massive, and High Templar is Biological - Psionic - Light. Seems your theory is wrong. Maybe this has something to do with Vortex.
1 2 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
DaveTesta Events
18:00
Kirktown Ready Room #3
Liquipedia
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
18:00
RO8 Round Robin Group - Day 1
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
LiquipediaDiscussion
CSO Cup
16:00
#82
Liquipedia
FEL
16:00
Polish Championship - Group B
Spirit vs ArTLIVE!
IndyStarCraft 354
CranKy Ducklings284
Liquipedia
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
15:55
FSL week 5 - CN vs IC
Freeedom21
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
IndyStarCraft 354
BRAT_OK 111
MindelVK 24
StarCraft: Brood War
firebathero 1582
Dewaltoss 121
ZZZero.O 90
HiyA 86
Movie 49
Terrorterran 24
Dota 2
qojqva2556
monkeys_forever173
League of Legends
Grubby2803
Dendi1018
Counter-Strike
fl0m1757
Stewie2K774
flusha447
Foxcn324
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor729
Other Games
B2W.Neo1309
Fuzer 452
KnowMe327
ToD135
Hui .119
Trikslyr61
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick53646
EGCTV1745
BasetradeTV32
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• kabyraGe 179
• printf 53
• StrangeGG 44
• tFFMrPink 15
• IndyKCrew
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• 80smullet 20
• Michael_bg 5
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota2323
League of Legends
• Jankos1704
Other Games
• imaqtpie1682
• Shiphtur314
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
15h 17m
RSL Revival
15h 17m
Classic vs Clem
FEL
20h 17m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
23h 17m
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Wardi Open
1d 16h
Replay Cast
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
PiGosaur Monday
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Epic.LAN
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Epic.LAN
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Liquipedia Results

Completed

KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
HSC XXVII
NC Random Cup

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.