• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:37
CEST 11:37
KST 18:37
  • 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
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation5$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced4Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
[G] Progamer Settings i aint gon lie to u bruh... ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
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
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\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
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 535 users

Potential Ladder Map Changes

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Normal
juicyjames *
Profile Joined August 2011
United States3815 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-18 00:14:26
May 15 2013 23:07 GMT
#1
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796361461?page=7#122

Updated - 5:00 pm PDT - 5/17/2013: Star Station spawn positions have been updated. Players will now only spawn diagonally while playing on Star Station. No changes have been made to Klontas Mire; however, we will continue to monitor your feedback surrounding potential changes.


http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796361461

We have a discussion going on with the major tournaments around the world about making Star Station diagonal only spawn positions to make the map more fair in all the matchups. We'd like to get your feedback also before we make this change.

+ Show Spoiler [Image of Star Station] +
[image loading]


One other thing on maps is there was a really interesting suggestion for Klontas Mire. This map is turning out to be really rush friendly as expected, but one downside was that it also encourages timing all in attacks. So the suggestion was to add destructible towers on the bridge area so that early game rushes are still possible, but all in attacks are delayed in the early mid game.

+ Show Spoiler [Image of Klontas Mire] +
[image loading]


We know that most people think all 1v1 maps should be macro only and rush maps just don't work for tournament level play, but we'd really like to explore map variety which includes trying out different versions of rush maps.

-David Kim

Poll: Make Star Station cross-spawn only?

Approve (276)
 
88%

Disapprove (33)
 
11%

Neutral-prove (5)
 
2%

314 total votes

Your vote: Make Star Station cross-spawn only?

(Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral-prove


Poll: Add destructible towers to the bridge of Klontas Mire?

Approve (140)
 
59%

Neutral-prove (63)
 
27%

Disapprove (33)
 
14%

236 total votes

Your vote: Add destructible towers to the bridge of Klontas Mire?

(Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral-prove

This Week in SC2Find out what happened 'This Week in Starcraft 2': http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=278126
Rainmansc
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands216 Posts
May 15 2013 23:09 GMT
#2
Yes good post. I have no idea why star station isnt cross only.
-Kaiser-
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
Canada932 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-15 23:10:03
May 15 2013 23:09 GMT
#3
...How do destructible towers delay midgame timing attacks?

What is Klontas Mire?
3 Hatch Before Cool
xAdra
Profile Joined July 2012
Singapore1858 Posts
May 15 2013 23:11 GMT
#4
I'd rather remove Star station altogether. The third is atrocious for protoss to take.
avilo
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
United States4100 Posts
May 15 2013 23:20 GMT
#5
They should just remove klontas. It's a nice effort to make a map that's not just "3 base, macro" but klontas is just another one of those idiotic "2 base all-in rush + 3rd base is ONE MILE AWAY" maps.

If they want to implement their concept well it should be maps with multiple attack paths, or special terrain features, like multiple ramps but short attack distance...something, anything other than "i just got to your base in 2 seconds" and "i can't expo past 2 base because my 3rd is all the way at the bottom of the map.

And 2 base rush maps should almost always be diagonal spawns not horizontal or vertical. That way it's more natural taking expansions.
Sup
Kevin_Sorbo
Profile Joined November 2011
Canada3217 Posts
May 15 2013 23:21 GMT
#6
On May 16 2013 08:09 -Kaiser- wrote:
...How do destructible towers delay midgame timing attacks?

What is Klontas Mire?



lol so you vetoed it too?

on point : fuck destructible stuff.
The mind is like a parachute, it doesnt work unless its open. - Zappa
Ragoo
Profile Joined March 2010
Germany2773 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-15 23:23:27
May 15 2013 23:22 GMT
#7
My humble opinion as a mapmaker and TLMC judge:

If you can only make Star Station work in cross only then just remove it alltogether. All in all it's not such an interesting map to begin with so why bother limitating it so much just to somehow make it balanced when the whole layout is pretty shitty already.

On the other hand I think David Kim is completely right about trying out more aggressive maps as well to make sure we have map diversity. For far too long people were whining that everything should be macro, but especially at the end of WoL we have seen how boring it is when you see macro 40 minute games every game. Diversity of strategies and maps encouraging that is important for the game so I absolutely support them when they say they want to try sth here.
That Klontas will have a risky early game was always a concern I think that can only be clarified if pros play on it tho. There's a bunch of changes you could do not sure if Blizzard's approach with rocks makes much sense. I personally would rather remove some rocks at the bottom half and do some reworking there...

Now that said I think ultimately Blizzard shouldn't do any mapmaking themselves and leave it all to the community mapmakers and the great people from GSL/Kespa.

Hope to see some of the TLMC maps make it to ladder, it would be glorious guys, trust me
Member of TPW mapmaking team/// twitter.com/Ragoo_ /// "goody represents border between explainable reason and supernatural" Cloud
Mistakes
Profile Joined February 2011
United States1102 Posts
May 15 2013 23:23 GMT
#8
I still say just remove that Klontas Mire POS. Adding rocks to the bridge and removing the rocks to make you able to expand downward easier would be nice if they were going to keep it though.
StarCraft | www.psistorm.com | www.twitter.com/MistakesSC | www.twitch.tv/MistakesSC | Seattle
TheFish7
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United States2824 Posts
May 15 2013 23:24 GMT
#9
How about get rid of two mediocre maps?
~ ~ <°)))><~ ~ ~
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
May 15 2013 23:27 GMT
#10
What the hell is the difference between being "rush friendly" and "encouraging all-ins"?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
r1flEx
Profile Joined October 2012
Belgium256 Posts
May 15 2013 23:30 GMT
#11
remove klontas mire. much better
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
May 15 2013 23:31 GMT
#12
Why do people just post map names and not give pictures as well 99% of the time on here? I can't tell if this is a good thing without 5 minutes of looking up maps...
Sated
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
England4983 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-15 23:33:28
May 15 2013 23:33 GMT
#13
--- Nuked ---
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
May 15 2013 23:38 GMT
#14
On May 16 2013 08:33 Sated wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 16 2013 08:31 aksfjh wrote:
Why do people just post map names and not give pictures as well 99% of the time on here? I can't tell if this is a good thing without 5 minutes of looking up maps...

Because looking them up takes so long...

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Star_Station
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Klontas_Mire

About as long as it takes to put them in the OP...
CrystalDrag
Profile Joined July 2010
173 Posts
May 15 2013 23:38 GMT
#15
Make a destructible bridge instead, so you can collapse the entire terrain bridge :3
Zheryn
Profile Joined December 2010
Sweden3653 Posts
May 16 2013 00:13 GMT
#16
Even tho it's kind of amusing to watch Protoss players rage when you get close positions as a Zerg, I think that non cross-only maps are pretty retarded cause it just makes early game a big gamble since you can't scout properly.
hundred thousand krouner
GHSTxJet
Profile Joined January 2012
United States154 Posts
May 16 2013 00:15 GMT
#17
How about just completely get rid of Klontas Mire forever.
SuppySon
synd
Profile Joined July 2011
Bulgaria586 Posts
May 16 2013 00:15 GMT
#18
Just remove them. They're both terrible.
RogerChillingworth
Profile Joined March 2010
2840 Posts
May 16 2013 00:21 GMT
#19
why can't the community vote on maps they want in the pool, created by talented mapmakers and not blizzard?

Then, the mapmakers can be paid handsomely if their map is chosen.
aka wilted_kale
-Kyo-
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
Japan1926 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 00:32:07
May 16 2013 00:31 GMT
#20
On May 16 2013 08:20 avilo wrote:
They should just remove klontas. It's a nice effort to make a map that's not just "3 base, macro" but klontas is just another one of those idiotic "2 base all-in rush + 3rd base is ONE MILE AWAY" maps.

If they want to implement their concept well it should be maps with multiple attack paths, or special terrain features, like multiple ramps but short attack distance...something, anything other than "i just got to your base in 2 seconds" and "i can't expo past 2 base because my 3rd is all the way at the bottom of the map.

And 2 base rush maps should almost always be diagonal spawns not horizontal or vertical. That way it's more natural taking expansions.


This. The game is quite silly for protoss right now. It's basically encouraging 2 base timings so you can avoid 3 base because of how terrible these maps are.

They REALLY, and I mean REALLY need to look to old Kespa maps for ideas on maps. I made a really long video on this a while ago and I'm quite sad I didn't highlight it. Maybe I'll make another video on kespa maps in the next week to highlight how amazing they were compared to what we're playing on right now. (attack pathing ramps etc)

If you don't understand how big of a deal this is simply think of this:
Protoss, Zerg, and Terran are all forced into certain play styles on certain maps. Moreover, these play styles more than likely favor one race over the others. If maps are not balanced well along each races strengths and weaknesses then you just end up with maps that completely favor one race over the other. You then step away from balancing the game and rely on maps to balance it(he lost map 1 so has to win map 2 cuz it favors him). However, blizzard is still here. They should not only be constantly balancing units, but the maps as well. They need to take this much more seriously considering it's some people's life and it matters.
Anime is cuter than you. Legacy of the Void GM Protoss Gameplay: twitch.tv/kyo7763 youtube.com/user/KyoStarcraft/
TL+ Member
RyLai
Profile Joined May 2011
United States477 Posts
May 16 2013 01:26 GMT
#21
I want more 4 spawn maps (for sneaky early eco plays), but Star Station is shitty for anyone not playing Terran if you don't spawn cross.

Klonta's Mire is just a bad map no matter what.

I would love to see maps that encourage rushing (to change things up), but there also needs to be viability for macro play. As such, maybe a 3 spawn map with short rush distances, the natural on low ground behind the main, and the third in the front similar to a natural, with a moderately open choke (so it's not TOO easy to take) and the center of the map could be a high ground area. Current ramps leading out of the natural go downhill to make it easy to defend the natural. If we changed that to going uphill (since this IS the third base), then there is incentive to at least maintain some control over the high ground area. That would be interesting. It would be natural choke, into more flat ground, then about half a screen width away from the natural (keep in mind this is actually the third) choke, we have the central high ground with a BIG entrance. And maybe it could be that there are 6 paths from the central area: 3 to the spawning positions, and 3 more to additional bases (4th, 5th, and 6th). We could even have additional bases on the high ground (or just before it), though I don't think it'd be a good idea. Like, if you want a balanced 1v1 individual league map for rushing, that's sort of what you have to go for, and it sounds so weird and has so many gimmicks and hoops to jump through. Better to just make good macro maps. Kids need to learn to macro anyway.
Erik.TheRed
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States1655 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 01:38:08
May 16 2013 01:37 GMT
#22
Just get rid of both maps and give the community mapmakers a chance to have their work represented on ladder.
"See you space cowboy"
BaaL`
Profile Joined May 2010
297 Posts
May 16 2013 01:44 GMT
#23
Well the best option would be, like many people said, to have community or GSL/Kespa maps.

These changes would still be good though, I think both make a lot of sense. They would make bad maps mediocre if they work out.
tuho12345
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
4482 Posts
May 16 2013 01:46 GMT
#24
On May 16 2013 08:09 Rainmansc wrote:
Yes good post. I have no idea why star station isnt cross only.

that map is freaking huge, why do we need cross spawned only? add some variations ffs.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 02:17:08
May 16 2013 02:16 GMT
#25
I have a conflicting relationship with Klontas. On one hand, I really like the super narrow choke that is also the short attack path. On the other hand, it's hard to expand on it even without the attack path.

Also, thank you for adding the maps to the OP.
Shin_Gouki
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States313 Posts
May 16 2013 02:21 GMT
#26
Forced cross spawn for Star Station would be really nice imo. Idk why they want destructible rocks to prevent all-ins. Macro play is good, but not everyone wants that on every map. I have it vetoed, so I guess my opinion is null either way.
Death comes in many forms
Enki
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
United States2548 Posts
May 16 2013 02:22 GMT
#27
Klontas is just horrid, they should just remove it entirely. I feel neutral towards Star Station cross spawns. I don't feel like it's too close. It happened with Antiga because there was positional imbalance, I don't feel like SS has this...
"Practice, practice, practice. And when you're not practicing you should be practicing. It's the only way to get better. The only way." I run the Smix Fanclub!
playa
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States1284 Posts
May 16 2013 02:25 GMT
#28
On May 16 2013 09:13 Zheryn wrote:
Even tho it's kind of amusing to watch Protoss players rage when you get close positions as a Zerg, I think that non cross-only maps are pretty retarded cause it just makes early game a big gamble since you can't scout properly.


Interesting. I've always preferred close positions on that map versus zerg. Feels like mid-late game is way easier because you can actually do colossi timings without vipers on the field, due to not having to run a marathon to attack a base, and obviously it's a lot easier to retreat if need be. As for early game... even though the third isn't the best, it sure as hell beats neo planet. At least you don't need to get into a car to visit your third, and colossi can utilize the main/terrain to defend the natural and the third.

As for Kiontas or w/e it's called, lol. I can't believe people have played it enough to have that much of a developed opinion on it. If you've played it once, it's about as automatic as a veto gets. I didn't even realize the map was meant to be taken seriously. Figured it was a joke or something. Also interesting.
ThomasjServo
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
15244 Posts
May 16 2013 02:29 GMT
#29
I don't mind Star Station in its current form, but I can see how it would be really obnoxious. I think Klontas is a poor man's Scrap Station and that is saying something because Scrap Station is a map I look back on fondly, but I know in my heart of hearts it was a shitty map. If Klontas isn't gone by next season I will be pretty disappointed.
LTY
Profile Joined November 2012
United States223 Posts
May 16 2013 02:36 GMT
#30
Klontas map seems little bit interseting, but i don't think many people play on that map.
blizzard should get rid of this and put some map from community map makers or use GSL/Kespa maps.
I know few people already mentioned it, but yes.
Known as Miso or LTY
DanLee
Profile Joined January 2012
Canada316 Posts
May 16 2013 02:37 GMT
#31
I don't quite comprehend, star station clearly broken in close positions. Blizzard does the sane thing in response and makes a move to remove close position. Pauses said move to then consult the community just to see if the vote would tip towards the disapprove side before making this obviously correct change. I don't know who they expected to vote no and why these people haven't been shot yet.
nty
.kv
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2332 Posts
May 16 2013 02:40 GMT
#32
they might as well scrap Klontas Mire and bring back Scrap Station aka crap station if they want to add destructibles on the bridge
Uhh Negative
Profile Joined May 2010
United States1090 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 02:48:24
May 16 2013 02:47 GMT
#33
On May 16 2013 08:38 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 16 2013 08:33 Sated wrote:
On May 16 2013 08:31 aksfjh wrote:
Why do people just post map names and not give pictures as well 99% of the time on here? I can't tell if this is a good thing without 5 minutes of looking up maps...

Because looking them up takes so long...

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Star_Station
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Klontas_Mire

About as long as it takes to put them in the OP...

Most anyone reading this thread is already going to know exactly what Star Station is and will most likely know at least that Klontas Mire is the crappy ladder map that everyone downvotes.

I think that experimenting with new map types is a fantastic idea, but it seems Blizzard finds it challenging enough to make good macro maps, so I don't have too much faith that we'll see a great tournament map that encourages more aggressive play coming out of blizzard.
BPLOL
Profile Joined February 2012
United States55 Posts
May 16 2013 02:59 GMT
#34
The rocks aren't going to fix Klontas Mire, just remove the center bridge!

Or move the map entirely :D
★JD★MKP★DRG★BP★FIGHTING★
Kevin_Sorbo
Profile Joined November 2011
Canada3217 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 03:28:47
May 16 2013 03:27 GMT
#35
nvm
The mind is like a parachute, it doesnt work unless its open. - Zappa
Lunchador
Profile Joined April 2010
United States776 Posts
May 16 2013 03:29 GMT
#36
Klontas Mire is the new Steppes of War! =P It's funny how only the top half of the map ever gets used.
Defender of truth, justice, and noontime meals!
_Search_
Profile Joined February 2011
Canada180 Posts
May 16 2013 03:52 GMT
#37
On May 16 2013 09:21 RogerChillingworth wrote:
why can't the community vote on maps they want in the pool, created by talented mapmakers and not blizzard?

Then, the mapmakers can be paid handsomely if their map is chosen.


Now THAT'S a suggestion. Though I'm sure it would bring in WAY too much extra hassle/bullshit to pay mapmakers, letting the community choose makes so much more sense.
BronzeKnee
Profile Joined March 2011
United States5217 Posts
May 16 2013 03:52 GMT
#38
On May 16 2013 08:27 IgnE wrote:
What the hell is the difference between being "rush friendly" and "encouraging all-ins"?


Exactly what I was thinking. Yet more evidence that David Kim has no idea what he is doing.
monitor
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States2404 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 03:53:55
May 16 2013 03:53 GMT
#39
The maps suck either way, who cares.
Mapmaker & TLMC Judge. Amygdala, Frostline, Crimson Court, and Korhal Compound (WoL).
ffadicted
Profile Joined January 2011
United States3545 Posts
May 16 2013 03:55 GMT
#40
Star Station is still an automatic veto for protoss because of third bases, and kluntas is still an automatic veto because it's fucking shit lol

Let's just replace them with 2 new maps plzzz
SooYoung-Noona!
suicideyear
Profile Joined December 2012
Ivory Coast3016 Posts
May 16 2013 04:03 GMT
#41
I hope neither return for next season.
)))____◎◎◎◎█████
KiLL_ORdeR
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States1518 Posts
May 16 2013 05:43 GMT
#42
Wish they put the new proleague and gsl maps in the map pool instead of shitty maps never seen in tournaments. Blizzards maps have always been shady though so i guess it's to be expected
In order to move forward, we must rid ourselves of that which holds us back. Check out my stream and give me tips! twitch.tv/intotheskyy
Dvriel
Profile Joined November 2011
607 Posts
May 16 2013 05:51 GMT
#43
The best way to improve Klontas is to...REMOVE IT!!!
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
May 16 2013 06:28 GMT
#44
On May 16 2013 12:53 monitor wrote:
The maps suck either way, who cares.

Seriously. I find it really problematic that this bid for "community involvement" is being used to legitimize Blizzard maps that have already proven to be bad.

Like, did they waste time on a meeting where people were pulled together from their different departments to decide whether or not to ask the community whether or not to spawn limit star station vs just leave it as is?


And what's more, these maps were already bad on paper. No one needed to play these maps to find that out.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
swordboy
Profile Joined August 2011
Canada299 Posts
May 16 2013 06:33 GMT
#45
I have them both vetoed, so I'm fine with the changes I suppose.
MarineKing | ThorZaIN | IMMvp | MMA | Sase | Sen | Kas
Sissors
Profile Joined March 2012
1395 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 06:35:04
May 16 2013 06:34 GMT
#46
Sadly we will never get any variety in SC2 maps because of what is shown clearly in this topic: every map that might be slightly different than the standard map and might mean you have to play a bit different than standard is automatically veto'd by everyone. Honestly I don't even know why blizzard still bothers, they might as well just only change map skins.

Regarding changes, I assume with destructable towers they mean collapsable rocks? If so that is a fairly nice idea imo. And I am always in favor of only crossspawns on big maps, or at least max 2 spawns, otherwise I feel it is just too coinflippy, if your opponent does a very greedy opening you either easily win by scouting him fast and punishing it, or you get unlucky and you don't scout it until it is way too late.


Edit: wish I could reverse veto maps to play maps which are veto'd by many.
asdfOu
Profile Joined August 2011
United States2089 Posts
May 16 2013 06:42 GMT
#47
On May 16 2013 09:15 GHSTxJet wrote:
How about just completely get rid of Klontas Mire forever.

this.
rip prime
grs
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
Germany2339 Posts
May 16 2013 06:44 GMT
#48
I don't like this excessive "every map must be the same"-thing going on. In a few months at latest we are going to complain that many games look the same again and again. A big part in this is the permanent complaining about every map that is a bit different (closer distance, hard to take third, etc.).

Could it not be that players will show different strategies on different types of maps, if the tendency would stop to make every map basically the same? Wouldn't that be more interesting to watch?
DusTerr
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
2520 Posts
May 16 2013 06:47 GMT
#49
On May 16 2013 08:22 Ragoo wrote:
My humble opinion as a mapmaker and TLMC judge:

If you can only make Star Station work in cross only then just remove it alltogether. All in all it's not such an interesting map to begin with so why bother limitating it so much just to somehow make it balanced when the whole layout is pretty shitty already.

On the other hand I think David Kim is completely right about trying out more aggressive maps as well to make sure we have map diversity. For far too long people were whining that everything should be macro, but especially at the end of WoL we have seen how boring it is when you see macro 40 minute games every game. Diversity of strategies and maps encouraging that is important for the game so I absolutely support them when they say they want to try sth here.
That Klontas will have a risky early game was always a concern I think that can only be clarified if pros play on it tho. There's a bunch of changes you could do not sure if Blizzard's approach with rocks makes much sense. I personally would rather remove some rocks at the bottom half and do some reworking there...

Now that said I think ultimately Blizzard shouldn't do any mapmaking themselves and leave it all to the community mapmakers and the great people from GSL/Kespa.

Hope to see some of the TLMC maps make it to ladder, it would be glorious guys, trust me

^ great post.

My biggest problem with KM is the high ground (and rocks) leading into the natural expansion. It makes it very difficult to defend the rocks without high ground vision while also allowing warp-ins. Just a little too easy for all-in play (but I do like the idea of aggressive maps).
ThomasR
Profile Joined January 2012
764 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 07:02:27
May 16 2013 06:57 GMT
#50
do any zergs even like klontas? the lack of counter-attack paths really annoy me


On May 16 2013 08:31 aksfjh wrote:
Why do people just post map names and not give pictures as well 99% of the time on here? I can't tell if this is a good thing without 5 minutes of looking up maps...

?

took me 5 seconds to google it and zoom in

here's the website:

google.com
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
May 16 2013 07:58 GMT
#51
The bridge on Klontas is actually super interesting though. Clearly encourages rush play, but as late game approaches trying to push a big army through that thing is hell. Swarm host armies and air-based armies with a little ground support can push along there pretty well, but bio, mech, zergling/baneling, roach/hydra, zergling/infestor, zealot/archon, or colossus-based armies have to go around. It's a pretty cool mechanic imo.

I think the part that didn't work out as planned was that the bridge was supposed to encourage early-game rush strategies proxying reapers on the bridge is glorious), but then as the game got later you were supposed to be able to take control of the bridge and prevent anyone from moving through. But it's pretty hard to control ground that far from your natural, so you just get to walk through the bridge with your all-in army most of the time, because if they try to block the bridge and you walked around, you get between them and their base. So the destructible towers make plenty of sense to me; if you can move out, close down that attack path, and move home, then it's much easier to stop all-in armies from walking through that path.

But I do think the rocks between the natural and the 3 o'clock/9 o'clock should be moved to the other side of that base. The map is obviously pretty rush-friendly anyway, so there's no reason to make the third base so inaccessible. And they want to avoid having two paths into the natural so fast expos are at all possible, but given the short rush distance and relatively aggressive bias, I don't see anything wrong with putting in a third base that's super defensible. Later on you're going to have to take your army around that direction anyway, so it seems fine to have to kill destructible rocks to attack your opponent's third.

After that, I think the map's biggest problem will be lack of attack paths. How do you counter-attack? Across the bridge, I suppose, but that's fairly easily thwarted. What then? This seems like the biggest problem ZvP, especially since there's lots of small attack paths that are easily force fielded.

Even so, I like that Klontas Mire exists. It's an interesting map that promotes a different style of gameplay, and when most of our map pool tends to follow very strict guidelines so that playstyles don't have to vary too much, it's nice to have a few maps that make you switch it up a bit. Sure in a year or so we might joke about it the way we joke about Steppes of War now, but at least it's a change of pace. You shouldn't always be able to do the same cookie-cutter build and keep winning without even considering the map.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
sM.Zik
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada2547 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-16 08:00:47
May 16 2013 08:00 GMT
#52
Star Station isn't too bad, with the cross-spawn only it would be decent. Klontas Mire though... Please just remove this of the map pool asap.
Jaedong Fighting! | youtube.com/ZikGaming
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
May 16 2013 08:11 GMT
#53
On May 16 2013 15:44 grs wrote:
I don't like this excessive "every map must be the same"-thing going on. In a few months at latest we are going to complain that many games look the same again and again. A big part in this is the permanent complaining about every map that is a bit different (closer distance, hard to take third, etc.).

Could it not be that players will show different strategies on different types of maps, if the tendency would stop to make every map basically the same? Wouldn't that be more interesting to watch?

You can have interesting new maps that aren't imbalanced. It's seriously dropping the ball that the best Blizzard can do is to bandaid these ones. It's a joke that Klontas was announced as "tournament edition".
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
gingerfluffmuff
Profile Joined January 2011
Austria4570 Posts
May 16 2013 08:26 GMT
#54
Good changes on SS, but the other one:

How can a lackluster map like Scrap Station 2.0 make it even in the map pool? I will continue to 1 + 1 hidden rax reaper allin on this abomination.
・゚✧:・゚+..。✧・゚:・..。 ✧・゚ :・゚ ゜・:・ ✧・゚:・゚:.。 ✧・゚ SPARKULING *・゜・:・゚✧:・゚✧。゚+..。 ✧・゚: ✧・゚:・゜・:・゚✧::・・:・゚・゚
UltiBahamut
Profile Joined October 2010
United States102 Posts
May 16 2013 08:43 GMT
#55
I agree completely with the star station play :D good change that is needed lol.

But i have klontas mire vetoed so i really don't care wtf happens to it. I will never ever play on it and if i do i'll just all in because its a horrible map :D
"Thats Halo, Dont worry" Huk
grs
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
Germany2339 Posts
May 16 2013 10:59 GMT
#56
On May 16 2013 17:11 EatThePath wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 16 2013 15:44 grs wrote:
I don't like this excessive "every map must be the same"-thing going on. In a few months at latest we are going to complain that many games look the same again and again. A big part in this is the permanent complaining about every map that is a bit different (closer distance, hard to take third, etc.).

Could it not be that players will show different strategies on different types of maps, if the tendency would stop to make every map basically the same? Wouldn't that be more interesting to watch?

You can have interesting new maps that aren't imbalanced. It's seriously dropping the ball that the best Blizzard can do is to bandaid these ones. It's a joke that Klontas was announced as "tournament edition".

My point is: You can't have interesting new maps if you judge balance by the current metagame, because it depends hugely on the current maps. This just goes around in circles.
Zerg.Zilla
Profile Joined February 2012
Hungary5029 Posts
May 16 2013 11:03 GMT
#57
I vetod this map so it doesn't matter...
(•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) ~Keep calm and inject Larva~
Cyro
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United Kingdom20285 Posts
May 16 2013 11:07 GMT
#58
We know that most people think all 1v1 maps should be macro only and rush maps just don't work for tournament level play


I disagree with this line a lot.. he takes people not wanting maps like this where certain all ins are unstoppable and thirds are close to impossible to take with people only wanting to "macro"

"Macro" generally means something like safe expanding under the mutual assessment that if one party was to go all in, the other would probably be able to hold it and win, therefore best option is to expand, pressure, harass etc.

A rush is not a rush if it is the only option
"oh my god my overclock... I got a single WHEA error on the 23rd hour, 9 minutes" -Belial88
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-17 06:35:30
May 17 2013 06:34 GMT
#59
-
On May 16 2013 19:59 grs wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 16 2013 17:11 EatThePath wrote:
On May 16 2013 15:44 grs wrote:
I don't like this excessive "every map must be the same"-thing going on. In a few months at latest we are going to complain that many games look the same again and again. A big part in this is the permanent complaining about every map that is a bit different (closer distance, hard to take third, etc.).

Could it not be that players will show different strategies on different types of maps, if the tendency would stop to make every map basically the same? Wouldn't that be more interesting to watch?

You can have interesting new maps that aren't imbalanced. It's seriously dropping the ball that the best Blizzard can do is to bandaid these ones. It's a joke that Klontas was announced as "tournament edition".

My point is: You can't have interesting new maps if you judge balance by the current metagame, because it depends hugely on the current maps. This just goes around in circles.

To an extent, you have to experiment. But in the case of Klontas for example, there are inherent problems that you can identify within seconds of looking at the overview that will prevent it from being a competitive map, namely that it's hugely anti-zerg in ways that are already well understood. It can't be an experiment because it fails before it begins.

My point (though I admit it's not immediately apparent) is that our standards should be higher than to accept flagrant imbalance for the sake of novelty, and I am one who is staunchly in favor of novelty.

The fact that Klontas is waved around in our faces like the path forward demonstrates the same old incompetence and hubris, and it'd be so easy to dispel by sourcing maps from the community.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
juicyjames *
Profile Joined August 2011
United States3815 Posts
May 18 2013 00:14 GMT
#60
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796361461?page=7#122

Updated - 5:00 pm PDT - 5/17/2013: Star Station spawn positions have been updated. Players will now only spawn diagonally while playing on Star Station. No changes have been made to Klontas Mire; however, we will continue to monitor your feedback surrounding potential changes.
This Week in SC2Find out what happened 'This Week in Starcraft 2': http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=278126
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
May 18 2013 00:21 GMT
#61
On May 16 2013 15:44 grs wrote:
I don't like this excessive "every map must be the same"-thing going on. In a few months at latest we are going to complain that many games look the same again and again. A big part in this is the permanent complaining about every map that is a bit different (closer distance, hard to take third, etc.).

Could it not be that players will show different strategies on different types of maps, if the tendency would stop to make every map basically the same? Wouldn't that be more interesting to watch?

The problem is that Klontas Mire is the same as every other map. The entire dynamic of bases and armies are exactly the same except attacking is more effective.

If you want actually different maps, take a look at the Proleague map pool, where the maps encourage vastly different play.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Elysian
Profile Joined August 2010
United States22 Posts
May 18 2013 05:53 GMT
#62
I think a more interesting change to Klontas would be to make the bridge one tile wide to limit the specific units that can cross.
BronzeKnee
Profile Joined March 2011
United States5217 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-18 06:05:54
May 18 2013 06:00 GMT
#63
On May 16 2013 09:31 -Kyo- wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 16 2013 08:20 avilo wrote:
They should just remove klontas. It's a nice effort to make a map that's not just "3 base, macro" but klontas is just another one of those idiotic "2 base all-in rush + 3rd base is ONE MILE AWAY" maps.

If they want to implement their concept well it should be maps with multiple attack paths, or special terrain features, like multiple ramps but short attack distance...something, anything other than "i just got to your base in 2 seconds" and "i can't expo past 2 base because my 3rd is all the way at the bottom of the map.

And 2 base rush maps should almost always be diagonal spawns not horizontal or vertical. That way it's more natural taking expansions.


This. The game is quite silly for protoss right now. It's basically encouraging 2 base timings so you can avoid 3 base because of how terrible these maps are.

They REALLY, and I mean REALLY need to look to old Kespa maps for ideas on maps. I made a really long video on this a while ago and I'm quite sad I didn't highlight it. Maybe I'll make another video on kespa maps in the next week to highlight how amazing they were compared to what we're playing on right now. (attack pathing ramps etc)

If you don't understand how big of a deal this is simply think of this:
Protoss, Zerg, and Terran are all forced into certain play styles on certain maps. Moreover, these play styles more than likely favor one race over the others. If maps are not balanced well along each races strengths and weaknesses then you just end up with maps that completely favor one race over the other. You then step away from balancing the game and rely on maps to balance it(he lost map 1 so has to win map 2 cuz it favors him). However, blizzard is still here. They should not only be constantly balancing units, but the maps as well. They need to take this much more seriously considering it's some people's life and it matters.


I highlighted the problem here.

I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks."

So then they decide to add rocks to the bridge "so that early game rushes are still possible, but all in attacks are delayed in the early mid game." What they don't understand apparently is that the rocks actually delay early rushes far more than early mid game all-in attacks, because the all-ins have a lot more units with them and come a bit later, meaning players will have more time and more firepower to take down the rocks, but the early pressure rushes won't have the time or firepower to take down the rocks, and thus must go the long way. In fact, by doing so Blizzard would make the map more all-in friendly, as early pressure is less likely, and thus won't throw people off their build order.

Maybe I am just crazy, but Blizzard seems wholly incompetent when it comes to balance and map making. They make decisions with reasoning that simply doesn't make any sense, and often makes the issue they seek to resolve worse (see above). Heads have needed to roll at Blizzard for so long.

But maybe I just don't understand, and if that is the case, I'd appreciate if someone could explain.
LainRivers
Profile Joined March 2012
United States36 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-18 16:09:32
May 18 2013 06:15 GMT
#64
Okay, now seriously. Why the fuck is Star Station hated on so much? Obviously the third is harder to take than some maps...but it's seriously no where close to impossible, easier with structure walls.

What actual fucking facts make the map so bad that everyone hates it for seemingly no reason. Are close spawns 100% without a doubt BROKEN? If the answer is no then shut up already.

(And none of you stupid kids respond with stupid '55/45'ish claims or that it favors certain strategies..that's not broken lmao, 100% acceptable)

edit: Unless of course that's the reason, which I guess I can't get all huffy over, just because I accept such maps doesn't mean everyone does. Honestly just, genuinely curious why everyone hates it so much.
Steelo_Rivers
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States1968 Posts
May 18 2013 06:46 GMT
#65
,_, klontas might as well be remade with the textures that made antiga shipyard and rebrand it as scrap station 2.
ok
DusTerr
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
2520 Posts
May 18 2013 07:18 GMT
#66
On May 16 2013 08:07 juicyjames wrote:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8796361461?page=7#122

Show nested quote +
Updated - 5:00 pm PDT - 5/17/2013: Star Station spawn positions have been updated. Players will now only spawn diagonally while playing on Star Station. No changes have been made to Klontas Mire; however, we will continue to monitor your feedback surrounding potential changes.



I always feel doing this is a band-aid to poor map design. It's better than leaving the map as it was, but the bottom line to me is that the map should never have been considered. I really like 3-4 player (spawn) maps but really dislike forced cross spawns. + Show Spoiler +
an exception to this would be Crux Korhal Floating Island which is designed to play out differently depending on starting locations


I also really think KM needs some changes to the rocks/ramp going down into the natural.
Xylocaine
Profile Joined November 2010
France56 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-18 07:30:03
May 18 2013 07:28 GMT
#67
On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks."


Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player).

Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise.

In other words, it seems like Blizzards can't get to decide between allowing fast attacks (what they call "rushes" and which they like because it makes bronze players able to attack before the 30 minute mark), and denying systematic all-ins (which is bad because bronze players who die to all-ins get frustrated after a while and stop playing). And, in turn, we end up with odd rush distances (just short of being Steps-of-War-esque), and with gibberish patch notes which look like they have been written by a 15 year old girl whose conscience is torn between staying "pure" until marriage, and having a night of torrid and barely legal sexual activities with her 16 year old lover...
Sissors
Profile Joined March 2012
1395 Posts
May 18 2013 07:49 GMT
#68
On May 18 2013 16:28 Xylocaine wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks."


Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player).

Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise.

With collapsable towers, as proposed by blizzard.
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-18 19:45:19
May 18 2013 19:41 GMT
#69
On May 18 2013 16:28 Xylocaine wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 18 2013 15:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
I still don't understand how Blizzard makes a map on purpose to "encourages rushes" but then gets upset when it leads to people doing "timing all in attacks."


Thank you, I was going to post to ask exactly that. Someone might need to explain it to me (maybe I just fail to see it because I'm just a lowly Plat/Diamond player).

Simply put, it's been more than 2 years since Sc2 came out, and my way of seeing things is that a map "that favors rushes" necessarily has short rush distances, and in turn maps with short rush distances will inevitably lead to strong all-ins. I can't see how it could work otherwise.

In other words, it seems like Blizzards can't get to decide between allowing fast attacks (what they call "rushes" and which they like because it makes bronze players able to attack before the 30 minute mark), and denying systematic all-ins (which is bad because bronze players who die to all-ins get frustrated after a while and stop playing). And, in turn, we end up with odd rush distances (just short of being Steps-of-War-esque), and with gibberish patch notes which look like they have been written by a 15 year old girl whose conscience is torn between staying "pure" until marriage, and having a night of torrid and barely legal sexual activities with her 16 year old lover...

Short ground distances aren't the only way to allow rushes. But that terminology is really unhelpful. What does it mean to "allow rushes"? (As has been pointed out already.)

One thing for sure is that short rush distances are really bad for zerg, especially with otherwise "normal" map features like an easy to defend natural, and especially in zvt. It creates a situation where lots of degenerate strategies are open to one player but not the other, and you have to defend against unfair things that may or may not becoming. Which just amplifies the imbalance. If you try to "fix" this by providing other zerg-friendly features to "balance it out", it often messes up the other matchups, and you're really just creating a scripted environment where players don't get to choose their strategies.

The goal would be to have a situation where attack timings are possible but scoutable and defendable without taking losing amounts of damage, which effectively widens the playing field to let players show more overall interaction. And with more interaction comes more opportunity to gain an advantage through skill. Distance is a pretty blunt instrument for achieving this. (Although combined with other things, as attempted in Klontas, can be useful.)

A crucial point here is that certain map features can make little-used unit compositions more viable at certain timings, which has a cascading effect throughout a game which allows the midgame and lategame transitions to look very different than a standard 3base macro game. This is the most fertile area of "unconventional" map design but it's the hardest as well.

^ As an example, Cloud Kingdom was taken out of the ladder for HotS so it isn't widely seen with today's PvP, but has been used in some tournaments still. That map allows a lot more effective blink stalker pressure, which was a big concern during beta and early days of HotS, but is really a languishing opening these days, usually pulled out as a very specific all-in, mostly chosen blind (before any scouting would trigger it). But given some time, PvP is pretty stable against blink strategies and the early fear about MSC high ground vision + blink isn't as relevant in the matchup now. So on CK, you get games you would never see on the current ladder maps, where a player can use blink to pin their opponent and expand, old school. Going into the midgame when both players have 2 bases, this creates HotS games that play out very differently than what we usually see now because of the much heavier component of stalkers, which affects both players' transitions and engagement decisions.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 23m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
firebathero 4083
Shuttle 1112
actioN 417
Larva 360
Stork 353
TY 262
Zeus 173
Soma 167
Hyuk 160
Mini 155
[ Show more ]
EffOrt 103
Nal_rA 93
ToSsGirL 90
Pusan 83
PianO 63
sSak 57
sorry 46
JulyZerg 35
Noble 32
hero 31
Sharp 24
Sacsri 23
Rush 19
Barracks 13
IntoTheRainbow 6
ivOry 2
Dota 2
Gorgc4563
XaKoH 471
XcaliburYe273
League of Legends
singsing587
JimRising 460
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K191
Other Games
tarik_tv23186
shahzam719
ceh9493
Happy336
Fuzer 284
crisheroes244
monkeys_forever168
Pyrionflax115
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick32732
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH394
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2168
League of Legends
• HappyZerGling105
Other Games
• WagamamaTV42
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
23m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6h 23m
WardiTV European League
6h 23m
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
Replay Cast
14h 23m
RSL Revival
1d
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
1d 3h
Replay Cast
1d 14h
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
2 days
OSC
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
FEL
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

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

Upcoming

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

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

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

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