• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 09:15
CEST 15:15
KST 22:15
  • 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 Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll2Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension1Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles7
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BW General Discussion A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone [Guide] MyStarcraft [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
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
US Politics Mega-thread The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Porn and Stuff Summer Games Done Quick 2025!
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: 578 users

Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 54

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 52 53 54 55 56 113 Next
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB
FreeTossCZComentary
Profile Joined September 2011
Czech Republic143 Posts
March 21 2012 14:19 GMT
#1061
On March 21 2012 23:14 Omegalisk wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 21 2012 18:11 FreeTossCZComentary wrote:
2 gases are better, and there is reason behind it - because of scouting. Timing of 2nd gas is key thing in scouting, if you are going to gas heavy, you need 2 gases which gives hint about what he will do. in PvP, second you see 2nd gas coming, you are going to feel relief as even if he goes 4 gate, it may slightly delay it. Therefore, I am for 2 gases, 1 having 2.5 k, other one 1250 only.


BW only had 1 gas, and it was about the amount of gas left in the geyser. If a lot of gas had been mined, then it was a tech strategy, but if little gas has been, you would need to know where those extra minerals were going to.


BW gasses costed 25 more minerals. As Barrin said in start, this is not BW.
www.youtube.com/OnlyFreeToss, FreeCraft ForFun SC2 MOD Rulez: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=292319 Dont even dare waiting, join FreeCraft now!
[F_]aths
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
Germany3947 Posts
March 21 2012 14:20 GMT
#1062
I think a revised resource concept should try to maintain 2 gas per base, at least for the main bases. This is something which separates SC2 from SC1. It allows more finely tuned build orders to take gases in smaller steps. The geysers could be placed a bit more far away from the main to require 4 workers for full saturation, or they could be placed so that the 4th worker fully saturates but 3 workers already give >75% of saturation.
You don't choose to play zerg. The zerg choose you.
Supah
Profile Joined August 2010
708 Posts
March 21 2012 14:37 GMT
#1063
Maybe it was just me, but in that PvZ you posted, it seems like Cecil was never in a position to actually contend. The Zerg was dictating tempo the entire game, and was even trading effectively until BLs with a silly amount of Drones dedicated to mining. Hatch cost coupled with the immense burst production of Zerg economy (coupled with Protoss lack of cheap and noncommital harass) seems to heavily favor Z in a PvZ.

I know someone touched earlier that he had a window to attack and "persuade" the Zerg to turn around. But even then, an unmaxed Toss with 2 HTs is never going to win a base race with any of the other races. Interested to see what Cecil has to say about that game though.
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-21 14:49:23
March 21 2012 14:45 GMT
#1064
--- Nuked ---
Surili
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United Kingdom1141 Posts
March 21 2012 14:59 GMT
#1065
On March 21 2012 23:37 Supah wrote:
Maybe it was just me, but in that PvZ you posted, it seems like Cecil was never in a position to actually contend. The Zerg was dictating tempo the entire game, and was even trading effectively until BLs with a silly amount of Drones dedicated to mining. Hatch cost coupled with the immense burst production of Zerg economy (coupled with Protoss lack of cheap and noncommital harass) seems to heavily favor Z in a PvZ.

I know someone touched earlier that he had a window to attack and "persuade" the Zerg to turn around. But even then, an unmaxed Toss with 2 HTs is never going to win a base race with any of the other races. Interested to see what Cecil has to say about that game though.


I have no idea how often Cecil checks his twitter, so who knows if he will reply to my post, but you have to remember that this is simply a proof of concept, no-one really expects this to be balanced at all, because the game is balanced around a very specific state of affairs. The greatest hope for Barrin i think (although i wouldn't want to put words in his mouth) is that this becomes very popular in the near future, enough so that blizzard decides to implement it to some extent within heart of the swarm, which is when balance will be more or less reset anyway.

Yeah cecil was always behind in that game, but i there are a lot of factors that one must take into account, like building placement that forced him to cancel everything he was doing in preparation for the third, which imho is the first place he really fell behind. That and his DTs did no damage. In a normal game where dts do similar, we would expect the same conclusion.
The world is ending what should we do about it?
Umpteen
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United Kingdom1570 Posts
March 21 2012 15:14 GMT
#1066
On March 21 2012 22:46 Elldar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 21 2012 20:43 Umpteen wrote:
On March 21 2012 19:55 tuukster wrote:
Barrin wrote:
For whatever reason, I kept hearing "what about 8m mains with less resources at expansions?". This encourages 1-base play and is therefore retarded. Sorry.


I like your post very much, but this was the one point that I think needs more than simply stating "It's retarded!". If we think of BW and its maps as a golden standard, then we should definitely try out maps with "8m main, 6-7m nats" or "7m main, 6m nat". Maps in BW play around a lot with number of mineral patches in each base, with "9m main, 7m nat" being the most popular I guess (interestingly the thirds might have 8 patches). And I don't see 1-base play in every single Proleague match, actually rather fast expansions is the norm. Of course this has to do with the fact that you get less resources out of one base in BW than in SC2, so I guess "7m main, 6m nat" in SC2 would be the equivalent of "9m main, 7m nat" in BW. Maybe even "6m main, 5m nat"? Who knows, we just have try it out.

Bottom line, playing around with the number of mineral patches is a way to bring diversity in the map pool, and therefore different strategies. Some maps might encourage fast expansions, others aggressive play. This gives players the opportunity to show their decision making skills in map specific situations. Who said that every base should have the same number of mineral patches?


The differing saturation curves between BW and SC2 might well mean putting fewer minerals at the natural has a different or stronger effect on encouraging 1-base play. In SC2 a worker in the main is worth the same as a worker at the natural right up to the point where you hit saturation, right? Whereas in BW a worker at the natural pulls ahead sooner, making the reward for expanding more analogue. Leaving mains untouched and nerfing expansions in SC2 would leave every single 1-base play as strong as it is now, while reducing the (relative) payoff for taking an expansion and consequently the penalty for delaying your expo 'X' seconds. One thing I really liked about the games I've seen so far is how much bigger the consequences are for laying on big one-base aggression that fails. The 'fewer resources at expansions' idea would take the game completely the other way, making 1-base plays less all-in than they are now.


As I mentioned before I think this typ logic that less resources at nat will make 1 base stronger is faulty. In fact 1-base is so strong since you can easily secure the same amount of resources at your nat. It make so that the opponents can still run a strong if he just take his nats.
Since you can't secure resources to support your production facilities if your 1-base fail or don't do enough damage would make you as all-in.


I don't see how the logic is faulty.

Imagine your main had eight patches and your natural just one. Would one base aggression versus an expanding player put you as far behind as it would if the natural had eight patches? No: the advantage of taking the expansion is small and accumulates slowly.

Now imagine your main had six patches and your natural had ten. Pretty clearly, failed one base aggression versus an expanding player would put you more behind than it does now, because the advantage is large and ramps up rapidly

There's a pretty clear curve here: fewer resources at the natural than in the main makes one-base play less all-in, more resources at the natural than in the main makes it more all-in.

Also, the fewer patches there are in the main, the more all-in one-base play becomes because the resources to build and defend a late expansion accumulate more slowly.

Thus, in terms of favouring 1-base play:

8main/1nat >>>> 8main/6nat >> 8main/8nat >> 6main/6nat.

The existence of a food chain is inescapable if we evolved unsupervised, and inexcusable otherwise.
tuukster
Profile Joined April 2010
Finland114 Posts
March 21 2012 15:21 GMT
#1067
To continue on the matter about "fewer patches in expansions", it's true that 1-basing play would still stay the same, but people already know how to defend against 4gates etc, so that wouldn't change anything in the early game. Expansions with less minerals would affect the problem regarding the "3 base ceiling", because now you might not be able to produce everything you want, or atleast sustain a large army for long, without going for that 4th base. Of course this is also a question about gas, since it tends to be the limiting factor when going for those higher tech, late game armies. I do agree that 8m mains might be a bit too much, since I don't find 4gating and all other cheeses/all-ins that mainly require minerals to be that exciting.

However, this is all just theoretical babble, we need to play more games on 6m/7m maps. Also, changing the number/type of gas geysers in mains and expansions should be another testing focus. It's the large amount of gas in SC2 that let's people get those high-tech 2base armies that beat 3base players.
Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
Phoobie
Profile Joined December 2010
Canada120 Posts
March 21 2012 15:25 GMT
#1068
Barrin, have you considered the possibility of increasing the amount of minerals per node in a fewer than 8 mineral nodes scenario?

Your graph in the OP illustrate that a 7m base at full saturation mines minerals at a faster rate that a fully saturated 10m base does in brood war. Using the values fro your graph:

7m base at 1500 per node contains a total of 10 500 and, assuming full saturation from start to finish, will be mined out in 637.007 seconds or 10.617 minutes

10m base in BW at 1500 per node contains a total of 15 000 minerals, assuming full saturation from start to finish, will be mined out in 964.01 seconds or 16.067 minutes.

That is to say, although both will mine closer to the same rate, with SC2 still pulling ahead by ~30 minerals/half minute a base in BW will last ~33% longer which is significant.

SO if we were to increase the amount of minerals per node in SC2 to let's say 2000 per node it would last about as long as 10m main in BW does. I suggest this because while it will be very important to spread your forces thinner to fight for control to secure more bases how do you transition into the late game with bases that mine out much faster? With 2000 minerals per node the game will more easily transition past all the early to mid game harrasement and skirmishes into a real war of attrition as each individual base lasts longer and is more valuable. players with map control will greatly benefit from maintaining and be able to grow their economy at the cost of spreading out more and more becasue your main and nat won't mine out as quickly and continue to hold value while a defensive player will still be able to fall back on his main and nat/3rd? in order to continue the fight for more resources/map control.
"Immortal Roach is pretty good against stalkers" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-21 15:30:11
March 21 2012 15:28 GMT
#1069
--- Nuked ---
Surili
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United Kingdom1141 Posts
March 21 2012 15:40 GMT
#1070
Let's do this! LEEEEEEEERRRRRROOOOOOOYYYYYY!!!

Sorry, wrong game.

Man i wish i was at home and could play these maps so bad :'(
The world is ending what should we do about it?
Umpteen
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United Kingdom1570 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-21 15:44:31
March 21 2012 15:44 GMT
#1071
I voted no, because I worry that Protoss might need the mineral-cheap gas (i.e. fewer extractors and gas-mining probes) offered by 6m1hyg to be able to take and hold expansions cost-effectively (eg lots of sentries, DTs etc).

If that doesn't prove to be an issue, or if it's already known not to be an issue, fine.
The existence of a food chain is inescapable if we evolved unsupervised, and inexcusable otherwise.
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-21 15:49:28
March 21 2012 15:49 GMT
#1072
--- Nuked ---
Umpteen
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United Kingdom1570 Posts
March 21 2012 15:55 GMT
#1073
On March 22 2012 00:49 Barrin wrote:
Well each worker collects gas 33% slower, but if you use all 6 workers then your collection rate potential is 33% higher.

Furthermore, it gives you a reason to keep chronoboosting your nexus.

I see what you're saying though. Sounds like a balance thing, and I do keep hearing protoss are having problems (from the same few people maybe hmm). This extra potential gas rate could help protoss get more sentries and DT's.


Sorry; sure, I should have been clearer about appreciating that.

My concern isn't so much that they can't get the gas, but that it would cost too many minerals (225m for a saturated geyser) at a time when they're already trying to use gas to save minerals, if you catch my drift

This is all finger in the air though. It might well be that more gas, a little later, times better with the finishing of warpgate / shrine etc... Needs playtesting :D
The existence of a food chain is inescapable if we evolved unsupervised, and inexcusable otherwise.
Snijjer
Profile Joined September 2011
United States989 Posts
March 21 2012 15:58 GMT
#1074
Quote from Plexa

... If the popularity of fastest map ever and BGH and TDA is anything to go by, the player base prefers maps with more bases and more minerals. Why is that? Because they like seeing bigger armies with higher tech. As stupid as this is, it's just the way people operate. ... When you lose the support of the player and the viewer then the maps become unsuccessful and you, quite accurately, are hurting esports.


lol I can't believe someone could miss the reason of the popularity of fastestmap ever / BGH so badly.

The reason both these maps were popular is because they totally sidestepped half of the skill needed to play SCBW at a pro level - economy management. In fastest and BGH most of the time people have 1 base and maybe 1 expo on BGH! So more bases is just comically wrong.
Gfire
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1699 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-21 16:05:25
March 21 2012 16:02 GMT
#1075
On March 21 2012 23:37 Supah wrote:
Maybe it was just me, but in that PvZ you posted, it seems like Cecil was never in a position to actually contend. The Zerg was dictating tempo the entire game, and was even trading effectively until BLs with a silly amount of Drones dedicated to mining. Hatch cost coupled with the immense burst production of Zerg economy (coupled with Protoss lack of cheap and noncommital harass) seems to heavily favor Z in a PvZ.

I know someone touched earlier that he had a window to attack and "persuade" the Zerg to turn around. But even then, an unmaxed Toss with 2 HTs is never going to win a base race with any of the other races. Interested to see what Cecil has to say about that game though.

I think, based on the chat in the game, that that was their first time playing the map, so it can't really be used to say anything about it at all.


On March 21 2012 23:59 Surili wrote:
I have no idea how often Cecil checks his twitter, so who knows if he will reply to my post, but you have to remember that this is simply a proof of concept, no-one really expects this to be balanced at all, because the game is balanced around a very specific state of affairs. The greatest hope for Barrin i think (although i wouldn't want to put words in his mouth) is that this becomes very popular in the near future, enough so that blizzard decides to implement it to some extent within heart of the swarm, which is when balance will be more or less reset anyway.


I disagree. It's still quite balanced in general when coupled with map design. If things to prove favored for one race or another, there are other map features which can be changed. Map balance is actually a huge deal. The fact that Dustin Browder said all the units were balanced around cost doesn't really mean anything, because they aren't even if that was Blizzard's intention. It's way more complicated than that, and over time the balance can actually come to somewhere very balanced through only maps. This game mode should have a higher tolerance for imbalance because it is easier for the better player to get ahead, since everything you do has more weight to it. All in theory, of course, but I think I'm right.

This map is less about composition and more about position and expansions. Balancing each race to deal with position and expansions can be done in the map design, so in theory mappers should have greater control over balance compared to 8m maps.

On March 22 2012 00:44 Umpteen wrote:
I voted no, because I worry that Protoss might need the mineral-cheap gas (i.e. fewer extractors and gas-mining probes) offered by 6m1hyg to be able to take and hold expansions cost-effectively (eg lots of sentries, DTs etc).

If that doesn't prove to be an issue, or if it's already known not to be an issue, fine.

Well of course we can design the bases to be more easy to defend with fewer FFs or things like that if necessary. Each race defends bases in a different way to it's pretty easy to customize it when just laying out the terrain, if there seems to be an issue.

Anyway, how long does it really take to mine out 2000 gas relative to the minerals? Do the bases mine out too fast? Do we need over 9000 minerals?
all's fair in love and melodies
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-21 16:03:29
March 21 2012 16:02 GMT
#1076
--- Nuked ---
Snijjer
Profile Joined September 2011
United States989 Posts
March 21 2012 16:04 GMT
#1077
"SC2 is more about positional attacks and SC1 is more about unit micro." - Saracen

What's wrong with this? This is literally what realistic combat is like.
drgoats
Profile Joined March 2010
United States310 Posts
March 21 2012 16:06 GMT
#1078
Did anyone else notice that you mine more efficiently for the first few minutes of the game? I think this is because there are no free mineral patches at the start so your workers don't bounce around. Once you get to your 13th worker it starts to taper off.
Timetwister22
Profile Joined March 2011
United States538 Posts
March 21 2012 16:07 GMT
#1079
Couldn't adjusting unit prices achieve many of the same goals as 6m/2g? If units become more expensive, expanding becomes more valuable, micro becomes more important, etc etc. I think it would change the game just as much, but just an idea that could potentially do these changes with more precision. As in if you want players to be more spread out late game, make tier 2.5 and 3+ units and tech be more expensive. If you want certain units to be micro'd more effectively, make those units more expensive. etc etc. Just a thought, though I can already see many issues with it.

Anyways, great idea Barrin. Certainly worth experimenting with this sort of stuff. Cheers!
Former ESV Mapmaker | @Timetwister22
Randomaccount#77123
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States5003 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-21 17:46:01
March 21 2012 16:10 GMT
#1080
--- Nuked ---
Prev 1 52 53 54 55 56 113 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Wardi Open
11:00
#44
WardiTV1109
OGKoka 881
Harstem408
Rex135
CranKy Ducklings134
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
OGKoka 881
Harstem 408
Lowko213
Rex 135
StarCraft: Brood War
Rush 3990
JulyZerg 3718
zelot 2946
Sea 2373
EffOrt 897
Larva 733
Zeus 597
Stork 504
firebathero 332
PianO 323
[ Show more ]
Pusan 166
Mind 152
ToSsGirL 107
Sharp 78
Barracks 63
soO 54
Shinee 47
Movie 34
sSak 33
Shine 30
sorry 27
Terrorterran 22
Bale 10
SilentControl 10
IntoTheRainbow 10
Stormgate
NightEnD8
Dota 2
qojqva3427
XcaliburYe531
syndereN392
League of Legends
Dendi1207
Counter-Strike
x6flipin596
flusha553
oskar73
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King121
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor183
Other Games
singsing2051
B2W.Neo1240
hiko886
crisheroes386
Happy361
Fuzer 358
SortOf163
ArmadaUGS72
QueenE37
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick5082
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 32
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 1825
League of Legends
• Nemesis4386
Upcoming Events
RotterdaM Event
2h 45m
Replay Cast
20h 45m
WardiTV European League
1d 2h
ShoWTimE vs sebesdes
Percival vs NightPhoenix
Shameless vs Nicoract
Krystianer vs Scarlett
ByuN vs uThermal
Harstem vs HeRoMaRinE
PiGosaur Monday
1d 10h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Epic.LAN
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
[ Show More ]
Epic.LAN
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Online Event
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
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 Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
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.