• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:42
CEST 03:42
KST 10:42
  • 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
[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters8[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Siren's Call8[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Summer's End9Serral wins HomeStory Cup 2915Serral wins Maestros of the Game 244
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 30-Sep 7): herO thrives amid growing schism4Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon?117Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20)9Weekly Cups (August 24-30): Patches' balance mod takes over3New 3v3 BGH Ladder (and more) on ShieldBattery!46
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (Aug 30-Sep 7): herO thrives amid growing schism Nexon wins bid to develop StarCraft IP content, distribute Overwatch mobile game Balance hotfix patch 5.0.16b (July 16) SC4ALL: II Winner Will Earn a Spot at HSC 30! Weekly Cups (August 24-30): Patches' balance mod takes over
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) 2026 GSTL Announcement Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20) IntoTheTV X SOOP SC2 League : Weekly & Monthly
Strategy
[G] Having the right mentality to improve
Custom Maps
Nexus Wars 2021 GUIDE [M] (2) Industrial Park
External Content
Mutation # 542 The Ascended Mutation # 541 Binary Choice The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 540 Dodge This
Brood War
General
ASL22 General Discussion Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon? Pros React To: Calm's Big Brain Play Vs Mini New 3v3 BGH Ladder (and more) on ShieldBattery! BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL22] Ro16 Group B 2v2v2v2 Tournament [ASL22] Ro16 Group A
Strategy
Replay Review Process - What do you do? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation Game Theory for Starcraft
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread EVE Corporation Diablo IV [Maplestory Hardcore] Let's Play~!! General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish TSM pausing esports and CLG Dead
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Power Rank TL Mafia Community Thread NeO.D_StephenKing vs This Guy From 1 Million Dance
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Trading/Investing Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
MarineLorD Fan Club The Creator Fan Club The ShoWTimE Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Northern Ireland Global Starcraft
Blogs
F* the Children and Get Off …
TrAiDoS
Dreaming of BW patches (mod…
c3rberUs
Regacy Esports: The Bh…
regacyesports
LOCKPICKING NOOB
LUCKY_NOOB
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 7472 users

a really specific Ninja ZvP nerf (1.4.0 PTR) - Page 6

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 4 5 6 7 8 20 Next All
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
September 12 2011 17:33 GMT
#101
On September 13 2011 02:31 ishkabibble wrote:
I'm a little unsure about all these comments. In lategame if you clump up your units perfectly you will still get rolled by infestors. It's not like every game that Z wins was won because of baneling drops, and roach hydra corruptor will no longer be the only viable strategy.


1. Roach/Hydra/Corrupter is hardly a viable strategy vs the deathball. It flat out loses to it.
2. Infestors are being nerfed vs deathball. Can't NP colossus and reduced dmg on both fronts (vs light and armored).

Now you're nerfing banes, imo the best viable solution to Protosses attempting to deathball (I always liked them better than infestors). Unbelievable.
ohampatu
Profile Joined July 2010
United States1448 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-12 17:35:23
September 12 2011 17:34 GMT
#102
On September 13 2011 02:32 Blazinghand wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 13 2011 02:29 ohampatu wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:27 Blazinghand wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:23 Jayrod wrote:
You guys are reading this exactly backwards. First of all, its a bug fix... what was bugged before is now unbugged... keep that in mind.

What is happening in 1.3 is that zerg players are able to drop banelings onto armies that are completely balled up and, thus, should leave no landing zone for the zerg to drop their banes. Baneling drops should NOT be able to be performed AT ALL in situations where there is no landing zone... that is by design... its the same for all drop ships... you cannot drop your units onto an area that is occupied by other ground units. The bug is being fixed in 1.4 so now banelings are no longer the exception to that rule.

If any of you watch Liquid`Tylers stream when its up you'll see alot of times he balls his stalkers up intentionally to eliminate possible landing area for baneling bombs... You'll also see that it NEVER works... its through no fault of his own, but rather, through the fault of this bug, which is being fixed.

Does it affect gameplay? Absolutely. Should that gameplay have been possible to begin with? Absolutely not.


On the other hand, things like muta-stacking with an overlord in BW was basically a bug that shouldn't have been possible (or wraith-stacking with a sieged-up tank), and yet became a crucial element of gameplay. How the game was designed and how it ought to be played are not always the same.

On September 13 2011 02:21 windsupernova wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:18 N3rV[Green] wrote:
Baneling drops were just really really really fucking scary. I for one am glad I won't be seeing my ENTIRE ARMY turn into green goo while I can't move them cause they're all fungaled.



Well, the counter for that was... spliting your army and sniping the bananalings :D


Easier said than done, given that stalkers don't have quite the burst dps of marines against overlords. Still, I thought it made games pretty exciting to watch


Since im seeing you are one who is defending it pretty hard, even if it is a bug. The gw test that I mentioned up above. Can you tell me how exactly that is fair?




Unless its changed recently, only zerg's will work. Thats just plain not fair.

Sorry can you rephrase? I don't understand the following sentence:

"The gw test that I mentioned up above."

It's a bit early in the morning and I haven't really had my coffee lol.



I myeself haven't tested. But for testing purposes id like to see a person do the following.
As Toss: Make a large square of 8 gw's. Try and drop onto the gw's with terran dropships. Now try to drop with protoss dropships. Now try to drop with zerg dropships.
I am become death, for I am the destroyer of worlds.....You will be missed KT Violet!!!
TolEranceNA
Profile Joined April 2011
Canada434 Posts
September 12 2011 17:34 GMT
#103
On September 13 2011 02:29 Logros wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 13 2011 02:26 TolEranceNA wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:23 Jayrod wrote:
You guys are reading this exactly backwards. First of all, its a bug fix... what was bugged before is now unbugged... keep that in mind.

What is happening in 1.3 is that zerg players are able to drop banelings onto armies that are completely balled up and, thus, should leave no landing zone for the zerg to drop their banes. Baneling drops should NOT be able to be performed AT ALL in situations where there is no landing zone... that is by design... its the same for all drop ships... you cannot drop your units onto an area that is occupied by other ground units. The bug is being fixed in 1.4 so now banelings are no longer the exception to that rule.

If any of you watch Liquid`Tylers stream when its up you'll see alot of times he balls his stalkers up intentionally to eliminate possible landing area for baneling bombs... You'll also see that it NEVER works... its through no fault of his own, but rather, through the fault of this bug, which is being fixed.

Does it affect gameplay? Absolutely. Should that gameplay have been possible to begin with? Absolutely not.


On September 13 2011 02:24 TheKefka wrote:
This is so funny watching people rage at the most obviously bugged thing off all time.


It is so funny to watching protoss laughing at one of the only innovative zerg tactic every invented being removed from the game so they can 1-A like before.

It is so funny to watch zergs overreact as multiple people in this thread have already said that baneling drops are still possible.

You are so funny because i was clearing not refering to Baneling rain NOT-being accessible but i was actually laughing at the Amove protoss, besides the 2nd quoted user because i mis-understood or he just didnt provide enough information information for me to think otherwise.
Arotsis:"Nestea, what do you think about Zerg?" Nestea:"...Sad."
YumYumGranola
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada346 Posts
September 12 2011 17:34 GMT
#104
You guys are overthinking this. Basically you couldn't unload over dense areas before. The definition of "dense" is no free grid spaces on the ground below the OL. As there are free spaces when probes mine for example, this will have absolutely no affect. When toss armies engage usually they leave spaces as units move to engage, that's why everybody thinks you can unload over "dense" areas, but you must realize the definition of dense isn't just "a lot of units" it's "so many units that there's absolutely no space". I suppose you used to be able to get around that if you were to blindly order a baneling drop onto an army that you couldn't see (dont think that happens too often), which is why it's classified as a bug fix. But in terms of normal baneling drop usage it makes absolutely no difference.

Cheers!
arbitrageur
Profile Joined December 2010
Australia1202 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-12 17:37:12
September 12 2011 17:34 GMT
#105
On September 13 2011 02:31 Sated wrote:
Zergs realise that this is a bugfix, right? Units shouldn't be able to be dropped onto locations were there literally isn't any space for them. Can you imagine a Protoss ball politely making room for a marine to land in the middle of them? Of course not. The same is true with Banelings. Sounds like this is the dropship equivalent of stopping buildings landing by putting a unit under them.


.. Wow. So you'd kill off an entire part of the game that IS one of the only strategies in ZvP that requires ANY micro skill at all (the most micro intensive strategy in the game bar none, for both races), and is one of the only multitasking strategies in the matchup (mutas and roach/hydra drop has equivalent multitasking requirements) because........ you're not "supposed" to drop banelings onto armies? Jesus. What completely stupid reasoning.
windsupernova
Profile Joined October 2010
Mexico5280 Posts
September 12 2011 17:35 GMT
#106
On September 13 2011 02:28 Sqq wrote:
This is just terrible. I'm not sure what Blizzards reason for doing this is ? As soon as there are some micro tricks they nerf them out. It wasn't even overpowered or anything. It just made both sides micro harder ? I'm actually shocked and do not understand the reasoning here.


This micro ¨trick¨ has been around since Launch, this is obviously an unintended consequence.Really if they considered banneling drops a bug or OP they would have nerfed it a long time ago.

CALM DOWN GUYS
"Its easy, just trust your CPU".-Boxer on being good at games
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25562 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-12 17:36:28
September 12 2011 17:35 GMT
#107
On September 13 2011 02:34 ohampatu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 13 2011 02:32 Blazinghand wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:29 ohampatu wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:27 Blazinghand wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:23 Jayrod wrote:
You guys are reading this exactly backwards. First of all, its a bug fix... what was bugged before is now unbugged... keep that in mind.

What is happening in 1.3 is that zerg players are able to drop banelings onto armies that are completely balled up and, thus, should leave no landing zone for the zerg to drop their banes. Baneling drops should NOT be able to be performed AT ALL in situations where there is no landing zone... that is by design... its the same for all drop ships... you cannot drop your units onto an area that is occupied by other ground units. The bug is being fixed in 1.4 so now banelings are no longer the exception to that rule.

If any of you watch Liquid`Tylers stream when its up you'll see alot of times he balls his stalkers up intentionally to eliminate possible landing area for baneling bombs... You'll also see that it NEVER works... its through no fault of his own, but rather, through the fault of this bug, which is being fixed.

Does it affect gameplay? Absolutely. Should that gameplay have been possible to begin with? Absolutely not.


On the other hand, things like muta-stacking with an overlord in BW was basically a bug that shouldn't have been possible (or wraith-stacking with a sieged-up tank), and yet became a crucial element of gameplay. How the game was designed and how it ought to be played are not always the same.

On September 13 2011 02:21 windsupernova wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:18 N3rV[Green] wrote:
Baneling drops were just really really really fucking scary. I for one am glad I won't be seeing my ENTIRE ARMY turn into green goo while I can't move them cause they're all fungaled.



Well, the counter for that was... spliting your army and sniping the bananalings :D


Easier said than done, given that stalkers don't have quite the burst dps of marines against overlords. Still, I thought it made games pretty exciting to watch


Since im seeing you are one who is defending it pretty hard, even if it is a bug. The gw test that I mentioned up above. Can you tell me how exactly that is fair?


I myeself haven't tested. But for testing purposes id like to see a person do the following.
As Toss: Make a large square of 8 gw's. Try and drop onto the gw's with terran dropships. Now try to drop with protoss dropships. Now try to drop with zerg dropships.

Unless its changed recently, only zerg's will work. Thats just plain not fair.

Sorry can you rephrase? I don't understand the following sentence:

"The gw test that I mentioned up above."

It's a bit early in the morning and I haven't really had my coffee lol.




I... what? This is actually less coherent than your original post, as you seem to have quoted me and added words to my post. I'm sorry could you post again? I know it's busy in here but it sounds like you have a good point and I want to understand it.

EDIT AH HERE WE GO

On September 13 2011 02:34 ohampatu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 13 2011 02:32 Blazinghand wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:29 ohampatu wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:27 Blazinghand wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:23 Jayrod wrote:
You guys are reading this exactly backwards. First of all, its a bug fix... what was bugged before is now unbugged... keep that in mind.

What is happening in 1.3 is that zerg players are able to drop banelings onto armies that are completely balled up and, thus, should leave no landing zone for the zerg to drop their banes. Baneling drops should NOT be able to be performed AT ALL in situations where there is no landing zone... that is by design... its the same for all drop ships... you cannot drop your units onto an area that is occupied by other ground units. The bug is being fixed in 1.4 so now banelings are no longer the exception to that rule.

If any of you watch Liquid`Tylers stream when its up you'll see alot of times he balls his stalkers up intentionally to eliminate possible landing area for baneling bombs... You'll also see that it NEVER works... its through no fault of his own, but rather, through the fault of this bug, which is being fixed.

Does it affect gameplay? Absolutely. Should that gameplay have been possible to begin with? Absolutely not.


On the other hand, things like muta-stacking with an overlord in BW was basically a bug that shouldn't have been possible (or wraith-stacking with a sieged-up tank), and yet became a crucial element of gameplay. How the game was designed and how it ought to be played are not always the same.

On September 13 2011 02:21 windsupernova wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:18 N3rV[Green] wrote:
Baneling drops were just really really really fucking scary. I for one am glad I won't be seeing my ENTIRE ARMY turn into green goo while I can't move them cause they're all fungaled.



Well, the counter for that was... spliting your army and sniping the bananalings :D


Easier said than done, given that stalkers don't have quite the burst dps of marines against overlords. Still, I thought it made games pretty exciting to watch


Since im seeing you are one who is defending it pretty hard, even if it is a bug. The gw test that I mentioned up above. Can you tell me how exactly that is fair?




Unless its changed recently, only zerg's will work. Thats just plain not fair.

Sorry can you rephrase? I don't understand the following sentence:

"The gw test that I mentioned up above."

It's a bit early in the morning and I haven't really had my coffee lol.



I myeself haven't tested. But for testing purposes id like to see a person do the following.
As Toss: Make a large square of 8 gw's. Try and drop onto the gw's with terran dropships. Now try to drop with protoss dropships. Now try to drop with zerg dropships.


I think that we're talking about dropping on balls of units, not gateways.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
September 12 2011 17:36 GMT
#108
On September 13 2011 02:33 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 13 2011 02:26 hugman wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:23 Jayrod wrote:
You guys are reading this exactly backwards. First of all, its a bug fix... what was bugged before is now unbugged... keep that in mind.


Bug or not it's a very important part of the game. There are plenty of good bugs in many esports titles, strafe jumping for one, mulatisk stacking is another


Is it important because its exploitable or important because nothing has been created to be more innovative than dumping banelings on your enemy?


What? It's important for balance. Nothing to do with "because it's exploitable." I still argue it's hardly even an exploit, it's utterly stupid you can't drop a SUICIDE unit that's meant to explode on contact on an enemy army. You don't drop marines as bombs onto the enemy, they're meant to land and fight, with banelings you want the opposite effect.
Jayrod
Profile Joined August 2010
1820 Posts
September 12 2011 17:36 GMT
#109
lol jesus, what's with the hostility towards me. I was just explaining what the fix does. I just said baneling bombs were never intended to be able to be dropped on top of stacked up units. The way they wrote the bug fix note is confusing but thats because it HAD to be confusing to be correct. The bug allowed them to drop on top of stacked up armies, but it only happened when dropping on fog of war. Try dropping banelings on your own zerg army that is stacked up... it doesnt work at all... there's no room.

I think baneling bombs are exciting to watch, but its still a bug... not sure if they should fix it or not...
Numy
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
South Africa35471 Posts
September 12 2011 17:36 GMT
#110
On September 13 2011 02:34 arbitrageur wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 13 2011 02:31 Sated wrote:
Zergs realise that this is a bugfix, right? Units shouldn't be able to be dropped onto locations were there literally isn't any space for them. Can you imagine a Protoss ball politely making room for a marine to land in the middle of them? Of course not. The same is true with Banelings. Sounds like this is the dropship equivalent of stopping buildings landing by putting a unit under them.


.. Wow. So you'd kill off an entire part of the game that IS one of the only strategies in ZvP that requires any micro skill at all, and is one of the only multitasking strategies in the matchup because........ you're not "supposed" to drop banelings onto armies? Jesus. What horrible reasoning.


Also banelings are like bombs. Technically they don't need any room to be landed. They can just drop on top of your head and will have the exact same effect. So any "logical" reasoning seems misplaced
Ripper41
Profile Joined July 2011
284 Posts
September 12 2011 17:36 GMT
#111
On September 13 2011 02:32 ETisME wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 13 2011 02:23 Jayrod wrote:
You guys are reading this exactly backwards. First of all, its a bug fix... what was bugged before is now unbugged... keep that in mind.

What is happening in 1.3 is that zerg players are able to drop banelings onto armies that are completely balled up and, thus, should leave no landing zone for the zerg to drop their banes. Baneling drops should NOT be able to be performed AT ALL in situations where there is no landing zone... that is by design... its the same for all drop ships... you cannot drop your units onto an area that is occupied by other ground units. The bug is being fixed in 1.4 so now banelings are no longer the exception to that rule.

If any of you watch Liquid`Tylers stream when its up you'll see alot of times he balls his stalkers up intentionally to eliminate possible landing area for baneling bombs... You'll also see that it NEVER works... its through no fault of his own, but rather, through the fault of this bug, which is being fixed.

Does it affect gameplay? Absolutely. Should that gameplay have been possible to begin with? Absolutely not.

immortal were designed to tank damage rather than that burst dps (from the words of bliz)
would you say immortal should never have that dps?

Immortals have an attack. They are meant to deal damage...
Alejandrisha
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States6566 Posts
September 12 2011 17:36 GMT
#112
On September 13 2011 02:23 Numy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 13 2011 02:21 windsupernova wrote:
On September 13 2011 02:18 N3rV[Green] wrote:
Baneling drops were just really really really fucking scary. I for one am glad I won't be seeing my ENTIRE ARMY turn into green goo while I can't move them cause they're all fungaled.



Well, the counter for that was... spliting your army and sniping the bananalings :D


Well if this goes through the counter would be... stacking your army and making sure it doesn't split :D


that's how you deal with almost every zerg comp tbh (any that doesn't involve bane drop or infestor). but then they get fungal and you have to spread which makes your units shit against roach hydra because ff becomes bad
get rich or die mining
TL+ Member
Logros
Profile Joined September 2010
Netherlands9913 Posts
September 12 2011 17:37 GMT
#113
On September 13 2011 02:33 NotSorry wrote:
Unless the protoss is constantly clicking move to a center point the units will be spread more than enough to not effect baneling drops. Stop crying before you even test it, the video is invalid because you're never going to see 60zealots standing in a perfect square not moving at all, and if you do then laugh as you 1a them with roaches then proceed to bane-rain uninterrupted the second he moves a step with any of them.

This. The situation in the video is not even close to what would happen in a normal game.
EmilA
Profile Joined October 2010
Denmark4618 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-12 17:51:14
September 12 2011 17:37 GMT
#114
Edit: Read test conclusion a few pages ahead. Sorry for this post
http://dotabuff.com/players/122305951 playing other games
MangoTango
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States3670 Posts
September 12 2011 17:37 GMT
#115
Woah, the way the videos look, they broke move-drop completely. Surely this isn't what they meant to do.
"One fish, two fish, red fish, BLUE TANK!" - Artosis
TheKefka
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Croatia11752 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-09-12 17:38:38
September 12 2011 17:38 GMT
#116
On September 13 2011 02:37 EmilA wrote:
I went on the EU PTR and I was unable to replicate the bug in the OP - drop command went through when I had vision without any problems whatsoever

[image loading]


QFT,told you it was a bug in the video.
Cackle™
Horse...falcon
Profile Joined December 2010
United States1851 Posts
September 12 2011 17:38 GMT
#117
Executor! Banelings are falling from the sky!

Quick, everyone huddle closer!
Artosis: "From horsssse....falcon"
ShatterZer0
Profile Joined November 2010
United States1843 Posts
September 12 2011 17:38 GMT
#118
Hate to break it to you... but seriously, this has ACTUALLY been around for a while, Protosses have been screen blinking then hold positioning stalkers so that they could only take radial damage for a while now... all you have to do as a zerg is force the protoss into motion then the banelings fall into the gaps... which means in 90% of real game situations this will change nothing.

It's a game bug... a unit can't land on a unit... that's how it's always supposed to have been....
A time to live.
ohampatu
Profile Joined July 2010
United States1448 Posts
September 12 2011 17:38 GMT
#119
Sorry blazing. Somehow quote got messed up, logged me out.


Do this test:

Make a square of 8 gw's.
Try and use Terran dropships on top of the gw.
Try and use Protoss dropships on top of the gw.
Try and use Zerg dropshiops on top of the gw.

Only the zerg's will work. This is not fair.
I am become death, for I am the destroyer of worlds.....You will be missed KT Violet!!!
susiederkins
Profile Joined March 2011
United States87 Posts
September 12 2011 17:39 GMT
#120
This is just getting absurd now, are they just desperately hoping to see more toss deathballs?
Prev 1 4 5 6 7 8 20 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
PiGosaur Cup
00:00
#98
PiGStarcraft534
davetesta29
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft534
RuFF_SC2 132
ProTech125
CosmosSc2 41
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 2376
GuemChi 1696
NaDa 29
Terrorterran 13
Dota 2
monkeys_forever384
Counter-Strike
Coldzera 1357
m0e_tv252
minikerr20
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe99
Other Games
summit1g8871
Day[9].tv638
C9.Mang0347
hungrybox230
Maynarde91
ViBE58
[ Show 11 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH280
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22184
Other Games
• Day9tv638
Upcoming Events
Kung Fu Cup
9h 18m
Replay Cast
22h 18m
The PondCast
1d 8h
KCM Race Survival
1d 8h
Escore
2 days
IntoTheTV X SOOP
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
4 days
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
4 days
[ Show More ]
BlizzCon
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
5 days
WardiTV Weekly
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
GSL
6 days
PiGosaur Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-09-08
PiG Sty Festival 8.0
Big Dog Cup 2026 Div 1

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 3
K-JUNGMAN
ASL Season 22
Super Anchor Qualifying S3
CSL 2026 AUTUMN (S22)
Acropolis #5
Acropolis #5 - TRS
RSL Revival: Season 6
Calamity Invitational
FISSURE Playground #3
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S3: King of Kings
Acropolis #5 - GSA
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Acropolis #5 - GSB
Acropolis #5 - GSC
SC4ALL II: Brood War
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 6
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
TLPD

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

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.