• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 05:51
CET 11:51
KST 19:51
  • 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 3 - Playoffs Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10
Community News
BGE Stara Zagora 2026 announced11[BSL21] Ro.16 Group Stage (C->B->A->D)4Weekly Cups (Nov 17-23): Solar, MaxPax, Clem win3RSL Season 3: RO16 results & RO8 bracket13Weekly Cups (Nov 10-16): Reynor, Solar lead Zerg surge2
StarCraft 2
General
BGE Stara Zagora 2026 announced SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA When will we find out if there are more tournament Weekly Cups (Nov 17-23): Solar, MaxPax, Clem win Weekly Cups (Nov 10-16): Reynor, Solar lead Zerg surge
Tourneys
Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest RSL Revival: Season 3 Tenacious Turtle Tussle [Alpha Pro Series] Nice vs Cure $5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 501 Price of Progress Mutation # 500 Fright night Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone Which season is the best in ASL? soO on: FanTaSy's Potential Return to StarCraft
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] RO16 Group B - Sunday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO16 Group C - Saturday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Game Theory for Starcraft How to stay on top of macro? Current Meta PvZ map balance
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread The Perfect Game Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games?
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 TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Big Programming Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Artificial Intelligence Thread
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Where to ask questions and add stream? The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Esports Earnings: Bigger Pri…
TrAiDoS
Thanks for the RSL
Hildegard
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1224 users

Issue with NASL First Seed vs Open Winner - Page 3

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 12 13 14 Next All
425kid
Profile Joined March 2011
416 Posts
June 09 2011 03:16 GMT
#41
On June 09 2011 11:34 seiferoth10 wrote:
So the winner of the first seed vs open winner wins and we move on. I don't see an issue here. Surely you're not trying to argue that the open winner will be vastly superior to seeds #2-15?

If koreans show up then probably
everyday847
Profile Joined February 2011
United States14 Posts
June 09 2011 03:22 GMT
#42
On June 09 2011 11:28 Kraznaya wrote:
This just underlines NASL's stupidity in general. They invited people like Artosis, Grubby, Painuser, etc. when they clearly weren't the top 50 players in the world, and now you have problems like these.

Disagree. I don't think they could have predicted the degree to which PainUser would have started to cast more than play, I think Grubby was a calculated risk who brought in a ton of WC fans, and I think it's hard to argue that Artosis wasn't a fan favorite. The premise was never truly for the participants to be the top fifty in the world. A balance was struck between the reality of who the target audience for the tournament was, who could get into the US easily for the finals, and who would show the best games. I think NASL did a pretty good job at that balance, and while the winner of the open bracket is likely to be stronger than the fifteenth finalist, there's certainly no guarantee. Each season will inevitably produce imperfect results--any single-elimination tournament is likely to result in more variance than double elim and so forth--but that's why there are multiple seasons.
L3gendary
Profile Joined October 2010
Canada1470 Posts
June 09 2011 03:23 GMT
#43
On June 09 2011 12:06 SanguineS wrote:
Standard tournament rules.

I don't see the big fuss. The best player gets the easiest first game. The lowest seeded player gets the hardest first game. If you didn't get an invite you are the lowest seed.

It wouldn't be fair to seed a player winning out of the open bracket above the player who were actually INVITED to play in the league.


No it's not standard tournament rules. Where on earth do you have a regular season to seed 15 players and then an open bracket for the 16th? The problem here is that there are good players that don't play in the NASL so the 16th player isn't necessarily the worst based off past results.

It could be Nestea for all we know. Anybody going up against Nestea (or say Thorzain) would not have the "easiest" game and I doubt the first seed would prefer it. It's kind of a gamble. It really depends on who is in the open bracket.
Watching Jaedong play purifies my eyes. -Coach Ju Hoon
chasmofcrisis
Profile Joined October 2010
60 Posts
June 09 2011 03:23 GMT
#44
So you're saying that they should arbitrarily decide how good the open bracket winner is when he has zero results in the NASL? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Let's say for a second that MVP wins the open. I have seen MVP play the most inspired starcraft of anyone in the world. I have also seen him play fucking awful starcraft and lose to people worse than him. On what do I base my decision? You can either arbitrarily apply one random game and seed a player based on that or seed him based on how he performed in the league at hand. The obvious and only solution is to give the open bracket winner the 16th seed.
cyclone25
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
Romania3344 Posts
June 09 2011 03:23 GMT
#45
On June 09 2011 12:15 McKTenor13 wrote:
Not the smartest OP in the world....but you are supposed to assume that everyone in the NASL is the best. They are the 50 in NA or the world or whatever. Whoever wins that open bracket isn't going to be better than the top of the NASL. So therefore it's smart to put open bracket vs. top seed.

And the people bitching about Artosis, Grubby, Painuser, etc. Are you serious? I mean really now. Please read how the freaking tournament works before you start bitching about it. The bottom 16? or 20? or whatever do not make it into the next season. The weaker players will drop out and the stronger ones will come in.


So there's nothing wrong with inviting "bad" players (instead of better players) because they won't make it into the next season anyway?
Your post is very smart, yes >.<
carloselcoco
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States2302 Posts
June 09 2011 03:24 GMT
#46
On June 09 2011 11:28 jalstar wrote:
I think it should be:

1-10: Top 2 of each division
11: Open Bracket winner
12-16: Wild Card Playoff winners


That is exactly how I think it should be too!
http://www.twitch.tv/carloselcoco/b/296431601 <------Suscribe! Casts in Spanish :) |||| http://www.twitch.tv/carloselcoco/b/300285215<----- CSL: Before Sunday! Episode 3!
rsvp
Profile Blog Joined January 2006
United States2266 Posts
June 09 2011 03:25 GMT
#47
On June 09 2011 12:15 sjschmidt93 wrote:
I like the idea of letting the #1 seed pick his opponent, then the next highest seed pick his, and keep going until it's all over with.


That's such an awesome idea.
WGarrison
Profile Joined February 2011
United States96 Posts
June 09 2011 03:27 GMT
#48
I made a post about this point in the Q&A thread for NASL back in March. Its relevant to this discussion so I will post it here.

On March 22 2011 02:12 WGarrison wrote:
Bracket and setup seem really nice. Only one thing bugs me about it, the open tournament spot in the finals is seeded 16th. I think it would be better if the top 10 (red) were 1-10 as they are, then the open winner (green) was seeded 11, then the 11-30 winners (blue) were 12-16.

A couple reasons for this.

1. You want to protect your top seed. The green seed could be anybody, a dark horse or anything. This seed will be much harder for the top seed to prepare for (less time as he is completely unknown until two weeks before), and could possibly be an unknown with little information about him. This is more dangerous for the top seed than lowest seed from blue would be.

2. There are to "Stories" you want to protect. You want to have the stories available for the champion top seed that crushes everything, and the story of the unlikely last minute underdog winning it all. When the top seed plays the open tournament winner first round, you kill one of your stories off the bat.

3. It is possible for top seed to hit the open tournament winner in the finals. This would be an amazing story. Remember the season that the open winner went 4-2 against the top seed in the finals. Well we wont have that opportunity with the current bracket.

4. Adds veiwer value to the 6-11 seed match. 1-16 already has veiwer value due to top seed. With the open winner in the 6-11 seed match it becomes more featured.

5. Seeding below the open tournament entry is a valid consequence for players who do not qualify for the championship through divisional seeding. Blue tournament matches are the ones competing for the final spots 11-16 and not making that means elimination. Its kinda weird to be playing for either 15+ seed or being knocked out, should be 16th and final spot or out. Blue is rightfully below green in this case.

6. It is possible for players who play well enough to garuntee that they will not have to play a random payer. One of the advantages now of placing 1st in your division is knowing the player you have to play against in match 1 in the championship. You have to be 2nd place in your division to have to play the green open winner.

Please consider seeding the green open player as 11th over the blue qualifiers 12-16. I think this will improve the otherwise brilliant bracket.
seiferoth10
Profile Joined May 2010
3362 Posts
June 09 2011 03:32 GMT
#49
On June 09 2011 12:23 chasmofcrisis wrote:
So you're saying that they should arbitrarily decide how good the open bracket winner is when he has zero results in the NASL? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Let's say for a second that MVP wins the open. I have seen MVP play the most inspired starcraft of anyone in the world. I have also seen him play fucking awful starcraft and lose to people worse than him. On what do I base my decision? You can either arbitrarily apply one random game and seed a player based on that or seed him based on how he performed in the league at hand. The obvious and only solution is to give the open bracket winner the 16th seed.


Have to agree with this guy. They can only go by what happened in the NASL and not some arbitrary decision about how good the open winner is compared to the other seeds. We could argue all day about where the open winner "deserves" to be, and those arguments would differ based on who the open winner was.
aristarchus
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States652 Posts
June 09 2011 03:37 GMT
#50
On June 09 2011 12:27 WGarrison wrote:
I made a post about this point in the Q&A thread for NASL back in March. Its relevant to this discussion so I will post it here.

Show nested quote +
On March 22 2011 02:12 WGarrison wrote:
Bracket and setup seem really nice. Only one thing bugs me about it, the open tournament spot in the finals is seeded 16th. I think it would be better if the top 10 (red) were 1-10 as they are, then the open winner (green) was seeded 11, then the 11-30 winners (blue) were 12-16.

A couple reasons for this.

1. You want to protect your top seed. The green seed could be anybody, a dark horse or anything. This seed will be much harder for the top seed to prepare for (less time as he is completely unknown until two weeks before), and could possibly be an unknown with little information about him. This is more dangerous for the top seed than lowest seed from blue would be.

2. There are to "Stories" you want to protect. You want to have the stories available for the champion top seed that crushes everything, and the story of the unlikely last minute underdog winning it all. When the top seed plays the open tournament winner first round, you kill one of your stories off the bat.

3. It is possible for top seed to hit the open tournament winner in the finals. This would be an amazing story. Remember the season that the open winner went 4-2 against the top seed in the finals. Well we wont have that opportunity with the current bracket.

4. Adds veiwer value to the 6-11 seed match. 1-16 already has veiwer value due to top seed. With the open winner in the 6-11 seed match it becomes more featured.

5. Seeding below the open tournament entry is a valid consequence for players who do not qualify for the championship through divisional seeding. Blue tournament matches are the ones competing for the final spots 11-16 and not making that means elimination. Its kinda weird to be playing for either 15+ seed or being knocked out, should be 16th and final spot or out. Blue is rightfully below green in this case.

6. It is possible for players who play well enough to garuntee that they will not have to play a random payer. One of the advantages now of placing 1st in your division is knowing the player you have to play against in match 1 in the championship. You have to be 2nd place in your division to have to play the green open winner.

Please consider seeding the green open player as 11th over the blue qualifiers 12-16. I think this will improve the otherwise brilliant bracket.

I also posted in the NASL Q&A thread maybe a week ago or something... The problem here is that however stupid the rule is, it's really not fair to change it once you have an idea of who the #1 seed will be and who is going to be in the open tournament. The tournament is only fair if the rules are fixed and not decided after you know who they'll effect. Dumb or not, they're stuck with this rule now.
WGarrison
Profile Joined February 2011
United States96 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-09 03:47:58
June 09 2011 03:44 GMT
#51
On June 09 2011 12:37 aristarchus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 09 2011 12:27 WGarrison wrote:
I made a post about this point in the Q&A thread for NASL back in March. Its relevant to this discussion so I will post it here.

On March 22 2011 02:12 WGarrison wrote:
Bracket and setup seem really nice. Only one thing bugs me about it, the open tournament spot in the finals is seeded 16th. I think it would be better if the top 10 (red) were 1-10 as they are, then the open winner (green) was seeded 11, then the 11-30 winners (blue) were 12-16.

A couple reasons for this.

1. You want to protect your top seed. The green seed could be anybody, a dark horse or anything. This seed will be much harder for the top seed to prepare for (less time as he is completely unknown until two weeks before), and could possibly be an unknown with little information about him. This is more dangerous for the top seed than lowest seed from blue would be.

2. There are to "Stories" you want to protect. You want to have the stories available for the champion top seed that crushes everything, and the story of the unlikely last minute underdog winning it all. When the top seed plays the open tournament winner first round, you kill one of your stories off the bat.

3. It is possible for top seed to hit the open tournament winner in the finals. This would be an amazing story. Remember the season that the open winner went 4-2 against the top seed in the finals. Well we wont have that opportunity with the current bracket.

4. Adds veiwer value to the 6-11 seed match. 1-16 already has veiwer value due to top seed. With the open winner in the 6-11 seed match it becomes more featured.

5. Seeding below the open tournament entry is a valid consequence for players who do not qualify for the championship through divisional seeding. Blue tournament matches are the ones competing for the final spots 11-16 and not making that means elimination. Its kinda weird to be playing for either 15+ seed or being knocked out, should be 16th and final spot or out. Blue is rightfully below green in this case.

6. It is possible for players who play well enough to garuntee that they will not have to play a random payer. One of the advantages now of placing 1st in your division is knowing the player you have to play against in match 1 in the championship. You have to be 2nd place in your division to have to play the green open winner.

Please consider seeding the green open player as 11th over the blue qualifiers 12-16. I think this will improve the otherwise brilliant bracket.

I also posted in the NASL Q&A thread maybe a week ago or something... The problem here is that however stupid the rule is, it's really not fair to change it once you have an idea of who the #1 seed will be and who is going to be in the open tournament. The tournament is only fair if the rules are fixed and not decided after you know who they'll effect. Dumb or not, they're stuck with this rule now.


Yeah, I was advocating to change it before the league started, it might be harsh to change it now. As far as the players are concerned it shouldn't make a huge difference, they should be prepared to have to beat anyone at anytime.

I'm only worried about the possibility of missed marketing/excitement opportunities. My storyline and viewer value points I feel are the strongest.
phate
Profile Joined August 2010
81 Posts
June 09 2011 03:48 GMT
#52
On June 09 2011 11:16 h3nG wrote:
http://nasl.tv/News/Article/20110602nasl-finals-information

According to the article, the the first seed in NASL will face the open bracket winner.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad choice??? Typically, the first seed faces the weakest player. But I actually think the open bracket winner will be one of the strongest players, if not the strongest.

Imagine if MMA, Bomber, Thorzain, etc... signs up for the open tournament. In my opinion it is better to NOT be first seed because of this.

Anyone else agree with this and think the rules need to be re-evaluated? Or am I misunderstanding something?


I agree. Not sure what the correct decision would be though. Would've liked to see a group system rather than the single elimination bracket (correct me if that's wrong).
Lord_J
Profile Joined April 2011
Kenya1085 Posts
June 09 2011 03:49 GMT
#53
There are a lot of things about the NASL format that don't make any sense. Actually, that's true for a lot of different leagues and tournaments in the scene right now. I don't know why organizers feel the need to design these byzantine systems when a straightforward league format with a plain old regular bracket for the playoffs will do.
No relation to Monsieur J.
Mephiztopheles1
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
1124 Posts
June 09 2011 03:51 GMT
#54
Well, thing is, the way it is right now, the top seed will either be Select or another korean like July, so I don't really see how exactly this is unfair for the top seeded player.
yoshi_yoshi
Profile Joined January 2010
United States440 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-09 03:55:13
June 09 2011 03:54 GMT
#55
On June 09 2011 12:24 carloselcoco wrote:
On June 09 2011 11:28 jalstar wrote:
I think it should be:

1-10: Top 2 of each division
11: Open Bracket winner
12-16: Wild Card Playoff winners

-------
That is exactly how I think it should be too!


Yea this sounds good.
FLuE
Profile Joined September 2010
United States1012 Posts
June 09 2011 04:05 GMT
#56
byzantine systems when a straightforward league format with a plain old regular bracket for the playoffs will do.


Funny thing is it just goes back to people complain no matter what. In the more straight forward systems people often feel some of the better players can get eliminated to easily, or that seeding isn't always easy and you get good players matching up to early.

Then when they go to systems like the NASL or MLG are using which try to allow the cream of the crop to rise to the top over time, people complain it is confusing, to long, to many games, to easy to stay on the top, to hard to get into the top, etc.

People are just never happy.

The participants all know the setup going in, and this is the layout. It can always be reevaluated or changed, but seems to me this thread could simply have gone into the NASL suggestions thread.
seiferoth10
Profile Joined May 2010
3362 Posts
June 09 2011 04:08 GMT
#57
On June 09 2011 12:54 yoshi_yoshi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 09 2011 12:24 carloselcoco wrote:
On June 09 2011 11:28 jalstar wrote:
I think it should be:

1-10: Top 2 of each division
11: Open Bracket winner
12-16: Wild Card Playoff winners

-------
That is exactly how I think it should be too!


Yea this sounds good.


The problem I have with seeding the open winner #11 is that #11 faces #6 in the standard bracket. Why does #6 have to face the open winner? He'd argue that #15 is the one who most deserves to face the open player because #15 did the worst during pool play.

So we'd seed the open winner into #1 to face the previous #15, but now #16 because it pushed everyone down. The previous #1 would argue that he deserves to play the previous #15 who did the worst in pool play.

My point: there will be complaints no matter where you put the open winner. The most logical place to put the open winner is #16 because by the invite structure, they're trying to invite the top 50 players in the world to the league, so the open winner should theoretically be #51 or greater in the world. Of course, that's impossible to invite the top 50 players in the world because player rating is incredibly arbitrary, but putting the open winner as #16 makes the most sense in theory.
Halcyondaze
Profile Joined January 2011
United States509 Posts
June 09 2011 04:16 GMT
#58
The Koreans still have to play cross server. And seeing their results, I would rather play one of them than a very good player that is playing in NA. Because honestly, all these players are able to take games off of each other
ZapRoffo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States5544 Posts
June 09 2011 04:18 GMT
#59
On June 09 2011 13:16 Halcyondaze wrote:
The Koreans still have to play cross server. And seeing their results, I would rather play one of them than a very good player that is playing in NA. Because honestly, all these players are able to take games off of each other

The seeds are for the grand final which is a "LAN" event in Ontario.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion man
RmoteCntrld
Profile Joined June 2010
United States596 Posts
June 09 2011 04:21 GMT
#60
You can't just pick and choose match ups. Brackets are based purely off results. Could a weaker player be higher seeded than a stronger player based off their groups? Yes, but thats just the nature of the beast.
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 12 13 14 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Sparkling Tuna Cup
10:00
2025 November Finals
ByuN vs ShamelessLIVE!
SKillous vs PercivalLIVE!
YoungYakov vs Krystianer
CranKy Ducklings190
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
trigger 46
Railgan 5
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 38926
Sea 6537
Horang2 1554
Larva 732
actioN 472
Rain 459
Soma 439
BeSt 273
Barracks 266
Sharp 196
[ Show more ]
Rush 154
zelot 153
Last 147
Hyun 107
ggaemo 102
Mong 83
Shinee 50
ajuk12(nOOB) 33
Shine 29
JulyZerg 28
NotJumperer 20
Noble 19
Terrorterran 14
hero 10
IntoTheRainbow 8
Dota 2
qojqva2657
XcaliburYe330
NeuroSwarm195
Other Games
Fuzer 275
crisheroes208
B2W.Neo0
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick841
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream261
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 13
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 51
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 38
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota291
• WagamamaTV88
League of Legends
• Jankos3960
Upcoming Events
WardiTV Korean Royale
1h 9m
Zoun vs SHIN
TBD vs Reynor
TBD vs herO
Solar vs TBD
3D!Clan Event
3h 9m
BSL 21
9h 9m
Hawk vs Kyrie
spx vs Cross
Replay Cast
13h 9m
Wardi Open
1d 1h
Monday Night Weeklies
1d 6h
StarCraft2.fi
1d 6h
Replay Cast
1d 13h
Wardi Open
2 days
StarCraft2.fi
2 days
[ Show More ]
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
Wardi Open
3 days
StarCraft2.fi
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
SC Evo League
6 days
BSL 21
6 days
Sziky vs OyAji
Gypsy vs eOnzErG
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

SOOP Univ League 2025
RSL Revival: Season 3
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
CSCL: Masked Kings S3
Slon Tour Season 2
META Madness #9
SL Budapest Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2

Upcoming

BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
Kuram Kup
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 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.