| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons? Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons? | ||
|
TokO
Norway577 Posts
In my opinion, if you take into account that Protoss plays a good build and scouts diligently, I think we have all the tools we need to compete with zerg. And it's important to keep up the tempo. For every minute, there has to be a check in decision, to consider punishing the zerg. If a protoss hangs back at "let's" the zerg build up, he's going to be in a pretty shitty situation. Protoss has a lot of scope to be played a lot more dynamically against Zerg, which is why I'm optimistic about the match-up. It's not good for the discussion to just equate failure with impossibility of performance. This is from a Protoss perspective. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
I thought the discussion was on the need to buff/nerf Muta because as a late game tech switch it is deemed by some as too strong. Was that not the discussion and not actually about the state of PvZ as a matchup? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 18 2014 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote: How much mins does Protoss normally bank? Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons? Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons? It varies massively based on chosen styles. SoO like ultralisk based styles can bank huge amounts of money very fast, but have a hard time actually forcing the Protoss to do anything and you can easily run into situations in which you literally trade 130army supply for 40. Then there are swarm hosts against which a P can build tons of expansions and the zerg has to use all his income on statics and rebuilding vipers and corruptors. Then there are roach/hydra based styles that have a verynlimited timeframe and in that either trade and win with remax or muta switch, or they just get shut down and the zerg cannotbhold the counter. And though this looks like zerg has a lot of freedom, you often cannot really freely decide which style to play as the zerg, depending on the map and the Protoss choices. (E.g. all mid-maps are immidiatly very anti-ultralisk. All huge maps are impossible for SHs etc.) Not to mention that Protoss has a platillion of allins and timings that often force you into very predictable roach/hydra or lose. | ||
|
Eraz0rZ
Netherlands47 Posts
You can commit tons of gas and minerals on defending vs units wich will either kill you or be a nuisance the entire game with you getting behind because your constantly losing small things. And he techs out to kill your counter tech (phoenix). (theres only somuch room in a base with a good sim city to clump everything up, i know zergs dont understand but 10 gates +forges+robo+bay+sg+templar+twilight takes allot of space) How many a time have i seen a so called 'perfect' fungal on a group of phoenix because there was a burrowed infestor waiting and baiting with mutas. And once the fungal hits. you literally insta-lose. There is also another way wich is auto win for zerg but a bit hard to do. The fungal viper ultra corruptor compo. blinding cloud + fungal with focussed mcore = auto lose army without even trading at all, it just dies. Protoss still doesnt have any reall harass capabilities. Sure you can get a warpprism in the main, but whatcha gonna do when the player is SH style mass spine/spore on every base? Then your just throwing away minerals in hoping to kill his (and spines are cost efficient in 5+ numbers) The only reall way for a protoss to harrass is sniping tech-buildings. because larvae dont even matter that much lategame with 5+ bases. But with tech buildings most of the time being tucked away with a huge HP pool and vs a race that has a speedbuff of creep with the fastest units ingame... its kind of hard to actually get a snipe off. So essentially your forced to be super aggresive allin vs a zerg regardless what he does, because there is no reall way to put on pressure, except pressure wich is cost inefficient. Problem with going super aggresive is. If you scout a zerg, you cant just be like "lets make 10 immortals and go!" Because protoss works with tech. If you dont have tech you can scout all you want, but your tech isnt gonna be out before you hit your timing. About the mutas... So what ive 'read' so far is the best ideas are commit heavy gas sink in archons wich gets sniped out if your on a drop favoured map. And if zerg decides to go mass roach tech switch, you have literally no AoE except big clunky no range almost insta dying archons. or you need to be on 4/5+ bases, Gl trying to get there when the zerg is constantly chipping away with there fastest flying unit ingame... except for its counter. | ||
|
TokO
Norway577 Posts
On October 18 2014 05:11 Thieving Magpie wrote: Wait, I must be misunderstanding something. I thought the discussion was on the need to buff/nerf Muta because as a late game tech switch it is deemed by some as too strong. Was that not the discussion and not actually about the state of PvZ as a matchup? It definitely was. But all of the arguments being made are formulated as 'this is how the state of the matchup is and that is why'. And I'm saying that those arguments are inefficient because they don't consider all the possible ways that the match-up could play out. They are often riled with biased statements, based on selected observations and personal experiences. Broodlord-Infestor in my opinion, wasn't catastrophic, because there was scope for both T and P to either drastically change the circumstances of the game, or deal game-ending damage before the composition came out. The analysis against Mutalisks should follow the same premises. Yes Zerg has a powerful lategame mechanic, but it is up to the Protoss to punish its weaknesses, and prevent Zerg from reaching that point. People might say that it's impossible to actually affect the outcome, as I describe, but to that I say that we still have room to innovate. There is still a lot of room for Protoss to 'outplay' the Zerg and secure the win. This is an argument that could be applied for all seemingly very powerful compositions. We accept it for mass ravens, for airtoss and generally for all lategame compositions. Why should we deny it for the Mutalisks? I think a lot of people have a hard time accepting that Zerg will innately be unpredictable. For Protoss, compositions in PvP and PvT are relatively linear, so we are used to aiming toward a single powerful composition. In PvZ, the dynamic nature of Zerg puts a lot of pressure on the Protoss production and scouting. I think this is a reason for celebration and excitement, as it means that there is a higher ceiling for skill. Rather than being a reason for whining about the Mutalisk. On October 18 2014 06:27 Eraz0rZ wrote: + Show Spoiler + I think with this muta discussion people are forgetting mutas have regen. You can commit tons of gas and minerals on defending vs units wich will either kill you or be a nuisance the entire game with you getting behind because your constantly losing small things. And he techs out to kill your counter tech (phoenix). (theres only somuch room in a base with a good sim city to clump everything up, i know zergs dont understand but 10 gates +forges+robo+bay+sg+templar+twilight takes allot of space) How many a time have i seen a so called 'perfect' fungal on a group of phoenix because there was a burrowed infestor waiting and baiting with mutas. And once the fungal hits. you literally insta-lose. There is also another way wich is auto win for zerg but a bit hard to do. The fungal viper ultra corruptor compo. blinding cloud + fungal with focussed mcore = auto lose army without even trading at all, it just dies. Protoss still doesnt have any reall harass capabilities. Sure you can get a warpprism in the main, but whatcha gonna do when the player is SH style mass spine/spore on every base? Then your just throwing away minerals in hoping to kill his (and spines are cost efficient in 5+ numbers) The only reall way for a protoss to harrass is sniping tech-buildings. because larvae dont even matter that much lategame with 5+ bases. But with tech buildings most of the time being tucked away with a huge HP pool and vs a race that has a speedbuff of creep with the fastest units ingame... its kind of hard to actually get a snipe off. So essentially your forced to be super aggresive allin vs a zerg regardless what he does, because there is no reall way to put on pressure, except pressure wich is cost inefficient. Problem with going super aggresive is. If you scout a zerg, you cant just be like "lets make 10 immortals and go!" Because protoss works with tech. If you dont have tech you can scout all you want, but your tech isnt gonna be out before you hit your timing. About the mutas... So what ive 'read' so far is the best ideas are commit heavy gas sink in archons wich gets sniped out if your on a drop favoured map. And if zerg decides to go mass roach tech switch, you have literally no AoE except big clunky no range almost insta dying archons. or you need to be on 4/5+ bases, Gl trying to get there when the zerg is constantly chipping away with there fastest flying unit ingame... except for its counter. I'm a Protoss and I think this is one of the most nuanced, biased, inconsiderate, uninformed posts I have ever seen. There is a need to call you out on this bullshit. I don't even know how to explain how you're wrong. | ||
|
Eraz0rZ
Netherlands47 Posts
You literally just stated we need to 'punish them' before they get to the composition, thats not good fun gameplay in any player versus player enviroment. Because what your basicly saying is that playing macro as protoss just doesnt exist in with sc2 vs Z. The problem with BL winfestor in WoL wasnt the idea that it was auto GG initially, it was that 1 spell (timewarp) instantly nullifies any advantages any party had in the earlier stages of the game. Exacly like the zerg only banking on BL winfestor to win for him. And that spell actually had a rediculously long casting time + short range (easy neural/sniped). Back then PvZ was all about getting as efficient as a build to get your archon toilet/bl inf out asap while defending harrasments, not because the matchup was creative. Its because the matchup got stale because there was only 1 way allot of people knew howto win with, it wasnt skill, fyi. I feel starcraft 2 is dying because of the no tactical approach. People dont think with sc2 anymore. its just do this build vs that build and win because its stronger and he cant defend because hes A)greedy B)no tech C)too slow. ex. OH see a greedy 3rd? Lets blink allin him! <-- guaranteed punish if your micro is atleast sub par. But this is exacly where the problem lies in my opinion. There are NO half of the map vs half of the map battles anymore where almost everything is mined out with 2 players being on equall skill level deflecting every attempt to take the game. Some skills became horribly overpowered wich is always the goto and the meta really engraved and set in stone for the future of HotS. One of those plays became the Mutablob. Its not tactical, its not hard to do, its easy prediction on whats gonna happen next. (either you win with mutas or your forcing out phoenix with doing damage and then transitioning after you took your 2 extra bases when the muta fighting started.) There is no inventive way around this. The game is made up of hardcounters like this wich is terrible for gameplay or general creativity. Wich in my personal opinion makes for a boring game. Most people in most matchups are forced to never be creative again. (look at PvT with the new buffed widow mine) closed all options for protoss to be inventive or creative forced into allin or 1 macro build. Ofcourse gave terran a whole lot of new stuff they could do because of it but in a few months the 'best' is figured out and all terrans will be doing that. Muta on 3+ bases in a macro game ussually is very much in favour of the zerg in PvZ. They have mapcontrol, harrass control and its a final countdown to the 'crit mass muta' if the opponent doesnt rush with phoenix or scouts intime what hes up against(wich is actually unscoutable if the zerg isnt making 1 muta at a time but 20 at once) This is not skillfull fun gameplay this is flipping a coin and hope your right and if you are, you almost automaticly win (you built phoenix and hardcountered the mutas) Or you didnt build them and you just straight up die in a baserace type scenario. This game will eventually die out if people at blizz dont realise hardcounters = look for best timing vs build = meta. and itll never change because of it.Why? because its engraved in stone that phoenix for example hardcounter mutas whereas there is no reall other unit composition wich could deal with mass mutas unless the muta player (ofc) is terrible and tries to magic box over 10 archons. If there is only 1 awnser, what do you awnser?. | ||
|
Enigmasc
United Kingdom147 Posts
On October 19 2014 03:36 Eraz0rZ wrote: I have never thought i would meet a protoss who ignores winratios so much, and is so biased in favour of mutas. You literally just stated we need to 'punish them' before they get to the composition, thats not good fun gameplay in any player versus player enviroment. Because what your basicly saying is that playing macro as protoss just doesnt exist in with sc2 vs Z. The problem with BL winfestor in WoL wasnt the idea that it was auto GG initially, it was that 1 spell (timewarp) instantly nullifies any advantages any party had in the earlier stages of the game. Exacly like the zerg only banking on BL winfestor to win for him. And that spell actually had a rediculously long casting time + short range (easy neural/sniped). Back then PvZ was all about getting as efficient as a build to get your archon toilet/bl inf out asap while defending harrasments, not because the matchup was creative. Its because the matchup got stale because there was only 1 way allot of people knew howto win with, it wasnt skill, fyi. I feel starcraft 2 is dying because of the no tactical approach. People dont think with sc2 anymore. its just do this build vs that build and win because its stronger and he cant defend because hes A)greedy B)no tech C)too slow. ex. OH see a greedy 3rd? Lets blink allin him! <-- guaranteed punish if your micro is atleast sub par. But this is exacly where the problem lies in my opinion. There are NO half of the map vs half of the map battles anymore where almost everything is mined out with 2 players being on equall skill level deflecting every attempt to take the game. Some skills became horribly overpowered wich is always the goto and the meta really engraved and set in stone for the future of HotS. One of those plays became the Mutablob. Its not tactical, its not hard to do, its easy prediction on whats gonna happen next. (either you win with mutas or your forcing out phoenix with doing damage and then transitioning after you took your 2 extra bases when the muta fighting started.) There is no inventive way around this. The game is made up of hardcounters like this wich is terrible for gameplay or general creativity. Wich in my personal opinion makes for a boring game. Most people in most matchups are forced to never be creative again. (look at PvT with the new buffed widow mine) closed all options for protoss to be inventive or creative forced into allin or 1 macro build. Ofcourse gave terran a whole lot of new stuff they could do because of it but in a few months the 'best' is figured out and all terrans will be doing that. Muta on 3+ bases in a macro game ussually is very much in favour of the zerg in PvZ. They have mapcontrol, harrass control and its a final countdown to the 'crit mass muta' if the opponent doesnt rush with phoenix or scouts intime what hes up against(wich is actually unscoutable if the zerg isnt making 1 muta at a time but 20 at once) This is not skillfull fun gameplay this is flipping a coin and hope your right and if you are, you almost automaticly win (you built phoenix and hardcountered the mutas) Or you didnt build them and you just straight up die in a baserace type scenario. This game will eventually die out if people at blizz dont realise hardcounters = look for best timing vs build = meta. and itll never change because of it.Why? because its engraved in stone that phoenix for example hardcounter mutas whereas there is no reall other unit composition wich could deal with mass mutas unless the muta player (ofc) is terrible and tries to magic box over 10 archons. If there is only 1 awnser, what do you awnser?. you can argue zerg is forced to play for massive tech switches lategame because theres no compostioin that can just staright up match protoss lategame, given time hes just going to make the right units he needs and kill you everytime ( unless you play SH turtle) if we had a composition that was stable enough to trade even till the lategame you wouldnt see a massive muta/ultra switch nearly as often? very few builds just straight up win vs other builds ( other than earlgame) , a blink allin wont neccesarily kill a greedy 3rd because roach/ling with creep can hold it or you can tech to hydras to hold it the hardcounter mechanic your complaining about is ironicall mostly a protoss thing, as most of the army is extremley strong but only vs specific types of units ( ie immortals vs roaches/tanks ultras but paperwieghts vs ling/hydra etc) its not just a muta-phoenix interaction :L protoss doesn lack that many options right now due to the mine buff, and honeslty i think that the + shields is far too strong tho it has atleast given terran options, the ironic part is that your angry at this now when terran plays have literally had to open repaer into 3 rax or fast e bay for months:L i have no idea where your pulling these winrate stats from like at all tbh, you just seem to be projecting your own bias onto the matchup | ||
|
HumanNZero
United Kingdom2 Posts
| ||
|
Eraz0rZ
Netherlands47 Posts
On October 19 2014 06:20 Enigmasc wrote: you can argue zerg is forced to play for massive tech switches lategame because theres no compostioin that can just staright up match protoss lategame, given time hes just going to make the right units he needs and kill you everytime ( unless you play SH turtle) if we had a composition that was stable enough to trade even till the lategame you wouldnt see a massive muta/ultra switch nearly as often? very few builds just straight up win vs other builds ( other than earlgame) , a blink allin wont neccesarily kill a greedy 3rd because roach/ling with creep can hold it or you can tech to hydras to hold it the hardcounter mechanic your complaining about is ironicall mostly a protoss thing, as most of the army is extremley strong but only vs specific types of units ( ie immortals vs roaches/tanks ultras but paperwieghts vs ling/hydra etc) its not just a muta-phoenix interaction :L protoss doesn lack that many options right now due to the mine buff, and honeslty i think that the + shields is far too strong tho it has atleast given terran options, the ironic part is that your angry at this now when terran plays have literally had to open repaer into 3 rax or fast e bay for months:L i have no idea where your pulling these winrate stats from like at all tbh, you just seem to be projecting your own bias onto the matchup I got these winrates from http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ And what your saying is that zerg cannot get an army wich straight up can kill protoss? I think your very very mistaken by that. Most zergs just dont bother with BL infestor ultra viper and corruptor and it seems they forget there macro 'swarm' mechanic larvae wich are way way way more powerfull in the lategame as stated by any zerg. Zergs dont even bother to get hardcapped at 250 supply (with drones turning into static D and then cancelled) anymore. The fact is zerg dont NEED to go to the ultra lategame anymore to abuse there macro mechanic because they can just outright 'outplay?' you from the getgo with stronger almost uncounterable units and leave a severe dent no matter how early it was scouted in the protoss eco line. See Hydra timings and Hydra allins vs no robo opener. Or muta vs no stargate opener. As a protoss it doesnt feel like your even in a war with a zerg, but in war with the cheese logic at blizz that there should be hardcounters for everything eventho the races are so different. But NO softcounters (see mutas before Hots and after) Oh wait protoss OP right? Still we cant steamroll a same level terran thats predictable since WoL having 1 standard build, making only MMM... and then they buff it? Eventho the winrates werent that bad back then at all. Way better then now. | ||
|
Swisslink
2953 Posts
On October 19 2014 03:36 Eraz0rZ wrote: I have never thought i would meet a protoss who ignores winratios so much, and is so biased in favour of mutas. You literally just stated we need to 'punish them' before they get to the composition, thats not good fun gameplay in any player versus player enviroment. Because what your basicly saying is that playing macro as protoss just doesnt exist in with sc2 vs Z. Same goes for Airtoss or Skyterran styles. You need to punish them, before they get their composition or your dead. I'm not saying that it's good that something like that exists, but all 3 races have something like that. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Enigmasc
United Kingdom147 Posts
On October 19 2014 18:49 Eraz0rZ wrote: I got these winrates from http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ And what your saying is that zerg cannot get an army wich straight up can kill protoss? I think your very very mistaken by that. Most zergs just dont bother with BL infestor ultra viper and corruptor and it seems they forget there macro 'swarm' mechanic larvae wich are way way way more powerfull in the lategame as stated by any zerg. Zergs dont even bother to get hardcapped at 250 supply (with drones turning into static D and then cancelled) anymore. The fact is zerg dont NEED to go to the ultra lategame anymore to abuse there macro mechanic because they can just outright 'outplay?' you from the getgo with stronger almost uncounterable units and leave a severe dent no matter how early it was scouted in the protoss eco line. See Hydra timings and Hydra allins vs no robo opener. Or muta vs no stargate opener. As a protoss it doesnt feel like your even in a war with a zerg, but in war with the cheese logic at blizz that there should be hardcounters for everything eventho the races are so different. But NO softcounters (see mutas before Hots and after) Oh wait protoss OP right? Still we cant steamroll a same level terran thats predictable since WoL having 1 standard build, making only MMM... and then they buff it? Eventho the winrates werent that bad back then at all. Way better then now. im not saying that you cant kill him, just there isnt much of a stable compostion where you can fight on even ground the only 1 option other than sh bs is the ultra/viper/queen/blord/infestor army and that has severe drawbacks of 1. bieng extremeley slow 2. requiring excelellent creepspread so that queens can keep up 3. tempest exists and so broods are prettymuch an invlaid unit 4. debateable but personally i find it very awkward to control not to mention that this sort of unit comp doesnt suit everyones style zergs dont bother to hardcap because its a waste of resources, 250 supply of roach hdyra/viper is worthless vs a 200/200 protoss deathball and overcapping is not free, its better to just build a larva bank for a quick remax/tech switch erm, protoss has been a race of hardcounters since like the dawn of time , the phoenix interaction is not really a new thing nearly 48% is hardley a brokenly imbalanced matchup, and considering aligulac takes every pvz into account and not top level PvZ into account i doubt its usefull to just state directly, and even so 2% is hardley game breaking heck according to aligulac pvt is in a much worse spot, tho i suspect thatlly settledown a bit once protosses figure out all of the terrans new toys and get good at stopping things like mine drops again i didnt in anyway say protoss OP? so you want PvT to be balanced to where protoss steamrolls anyone going bio because they know there going bio? by that logic terrans shoulds steamroll protoss in a macro game because you prettymuch have to go collosus and its not like bio in PvT is a choice, mech is just flat out terrible PvT and not really a viable option at all-it bareley works as a surprise build every now and then | ||
|
TokO
Norway577 Posts
I don't emphasise short term win-rates, because I believe it is possible for the race collectively to be unaware of certain critical elements that could potentially solve the problem. An example was when Terran kept dropping a two-base Protoss who went for basically only blink stalkers and colossus, we've had the same situation occur in Wings too. I think we established before that it would be preferable to wait at least two map pools, and preferably three map pools, to determine if there is an actual imbalance, independent of the map pool. Otherwise we end up with the so-called 'delayed nerfbat' syndrome, so nicely defined by Destiny, where buffs are timed with the players finding solutions and causing a major shift in performance. I'm not really in favour of Mutalisks. But I have to agree that they had to be buffed when Blizzard buffed the other tempo units of Terran (widow-mines and medivac) and to a lesser extent, Protoss. Also, I think that Protoss was fine, even during their era of dominance. I felt Blink plays were kind of like a 2rax, it took a lot of resources to defend, and defending successfully didn't necessarily mean being ahead, as with most other all-ins. It's kind of the same with Terran's midgame aggression, like the 3rax, early stim or pre-stim timings against Toss, and any Hellion-Reaper plays against Zerg. They both do require a certain set-up from the defender to hold. And I don't understand understand the reluctance of having the same opportunities to punish a Terran in return. Anyway, so given that I thought Protoss was fine, when they had up to 60% winrate against Terran, I think I need to be as critical to Protoss players as I was toward Terran players. In PvZ, your early game compositions increase in power dramatically when you improve your forcefields and mechanics. If you remember the time when herO could just send a hallucinated phoenix, and then go and kill the zerg 5 minutes later. Protosses need to play like that, but even more relentless. If we do that, Muta's become a non-issue. If you want to play passive, you have to make precautions, such as getting early air upgrades and pre-building stargates. It's just the nature of the game that you are forced into certain paths. The thing about Starcraft II is that the game will always feel crushingly difficult when you face people who are better than you in a match-up. If you downplay the skill of your opponent, you'll naturally blame the game, because who blames themselves for losing a game, right? It's a natural inclination, and it's very prevalent with Pro-gamers as well. EDIT: Not that I don't want balance to be discussed. But please don't do it with obvious misinformation. It really reduces the value of the whole discussion. Yes Mutalisks are disgusting, but that doesn't mean that we don't have measures to deal with it in a 1v1. | ||
|
playa
United States1284 Posts
| ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote: Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. So zerg is basically the most broken race if you listen to some individuals. Strange how zerg don´t seem to WIN any premier tournaments where all the best players are playing. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 19 2014 23:31 RaFox17 wrote: So zerg is basically the most broken race if you listen to some individuals. Strange how zerg don´t seem to WIN any premier tournaments where all the best players are playing. Funny it's a Zerg who has been to 4 back to back GSL finals | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On October 20 2014 00:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Funny it's a Zerg who has been to 4 back to back GSL finals Funny that it´s the same zerg. It´s not like with protoss. I wonder whether it could be because SoO is one of the best players in the world? Surely not. | ||
|
HellHound
Bulgaria5962 Posts
On October 20 2014 00:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Poor soO Funny it's a Zerg who has been to 4 back to back GSL finals  | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
On October 19 2014 03:36 Eraz0rZ wrote: But this is exacly where the problem lies in my opinion. There are NO half of the map vs half of the map battles anymore where almost everything is mined out with 2 players being on equall skill level deflecting every attempt to take the game. Off the top of my head, memorable series: Liquid Hero vs. Violet G2 at ~21 CJ Hero vs. Snute | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Classic vs Clem
FEL
Elazer vs Spirit
Gerald vs MaNa
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
