Improving the Global Finals Map Pool Text by TL.net ESPORTS Improving the Global Finals Map Pool by Mizenhauer

Mizenhauer



The WCS Global Finals at BlizzCon is the crown jewel of StarCraft II esports, guaranteed to be the most hyped, most watched event of the year. But there are still ways to make it even better. One of the most glaring shortcomings is the map pool. Under the current format, the Global Finals is played on the ladder map pool at the time of the tournament . However, no ladder season has a perfect map pool, and it's likely that one or two maps will be deemed 'questionable' at best. This is apparent in the pick/veto numbers from previous Global Finals.



Number of times maps were picked/not vetoed*



2017 Global Finals

Map Best of 3 Best of 5 Total (26 max) Ascension to Aiur 17 3 20 Abyssal Reef 9 6 15 Mech Depot 8 6 14 Odyssey 9 5 14 Interloper 6 6 12 Acolyte 6 4 10 Catallena 5 0 5



2016 Global Finals

Map Best of 3 Best of 5 Total (26 max) King Sejong Station 15 5 20 Frozen Temple 12 6 18 Galactic Process 10 6 16 Frost 9 2 11 New Gettysburg 7 4 11 Dasan Station 4 4 8 Apotheosis 3 3 6

*Players ban 4 maps in BO3 and 2 maps in BO5.

Includes maps picked but not played (due to series ending early).

Grand finals not included (no vetoes; all maps played).



At the banned in every single BO5. In contrast,



This is partially due to the tendencies of progamers, who typically prefer to play on 'standard' macro maps. However, some maps are too flawed or imbalanced to fault progamers for being conservative. A map like Dasan Station might force creativity with its incredibly close rush distance and exploitable backdoor ramp, but it's a type of creativity that's completely out of sync with the rest of professional StarCraft II. Catallena’s asymmetrical layout creates game situations that one can't even prepare for, with



Solution: Let players pick maps from the entire year How could the situation be improved? One solution would be to let the Global Finalists select the map pool from all the maps played during the competitive year. The sixteen finalists are determined more than a month before the tournament—they could submit their votes on the seven (or more) maps they want played at BlizzCon from the ENTIRE pool of ladder maps that year. All player votes would be added together and the maps receiving the most votes would form the map pool.



Not only would this protect the competition from being diluted by flawed maps, but it would allow the return of proven battlegrounds that had cycled out of the map pool. BlizzCon is supposed to be the culmination of an entire year of competitive StarCraft. All the best maps—from start to finish—should be celebrated. Players should be able to show the full extent on their skills on the very best maps.



Problems and potential solutions Of course, there are some problems with this solution. If the racial balance of the Global Final participants isn't perfect, players from the most-represented race would naturally vote for maps that worked in their favor. Nine Terrans, Protoss, or Zerg could force through a map pool favorable to their race, something that would put them at a distinct advantage.



One possible workaround is weighting votes equally by race. Another is to simply use the player voting as a reference while Blizzard curates their own master list.



Another issue is player practice. While many players find designated practice partners to help them prepare for BlizzCon, there are still players who rely heavily on ladder play. This may not be a big deal for Code S players who are used to playing on GSL's non-ladder maps, but WCS Circuit players may find it hard to adjust.



Issues can be worked out and the exact implementation can be determined through careful consideration. The core premise is the same: Expanding the BlizzCon map pool to encompass the entire year and giving the players a say would improve the Global Finals.



A change like this would give the sixteen best players in the world a chance to play at their absolute highest level, while viewers would get to see why these battlefields and combatants were the best of 2018. The final product would be a competition more worthy of Blizzard’s vision for WCS.



Pro-player feedback TeamLiquid.net sent out an anonymous questionnaire to Korean players (including previous Global Finalists) regarding a direct player-vote to choose the BlizzCon map pool.



Player A



• What do you think of this proposal?

Good proposal. Unbalanced maps not only cause race imbalances, but also make the games less fun to watch for viewers.



• Are there any issues that stick out?

None.



• How would you improve upon this system?

It's good.





Player B



• What do you think of this proposal?

I think that the ladder maps are better, because it is easier to practice.



• Are there any issues that stick out?

Being harder to practice? And the chance that maps with skewed balance will be selected by the players.



• How would you improve upon this system?

Blizzard selecting balanced maps in a fair manner.





Player C



• What do you think of this proposal?

I think it is a good proposal, but I think that [race imbalance in voting] is a very big issue. It would be good if there was a halfway solution. SC2, as a game, is greatly affected by the maps



• Are there any issues that stick out?

I think it’s a good idea.



• How would you improve upon this system?

Instead of the ladder maps for the very last season, it would be good to choose among the whole year’s ladder maps.





Player D



• What do you think of this proposal?

It's good. I think it would be possible to have fair map selection.



• Are there any issues that stick out?

None.



• How would you improve upon this system?

N/A





Player F



• What do you think of this proposal?

I think it’s a good proposal. It would be less convenient for the players’ practice, but it would give the fans some novel enjoyment. Also, BlizzCon is the conclusion of a year’s worth of tournaments, and it seems right that they use the maps that came before.



• Are there any issues that stick out?

If not for the previously mentioned problem where more players of one certain race qualify and maps favoring that race get picked more, I think it would be okay.



• How would you improve upon this system?

N/A





byThe WCS Global Finals at BlizzCon is the crown jewel of StarCraft II esports, guaranteed to be the most hyped, most watched event of the year. But there are still ways to make it even better. One of the most glaring shortcomings is the. Under the current format, the Global Finals is played on the. However, no ladder season has a perfect map pool, and it's likely that one or two maps will be deemed 'questionable' at best. This is apparent in the pick/veto numbers from previous Global Finals.At the 2017 Global Finals Catallena survived vetoes just 5 times in 26 total series, and wasIn contrast, Ascension to Aiur was picked 20 times. Going back to the 2016 Global Finals Dasan Station and Apotheosis were distinctly unpopular compared to the other maps (Dasan was picked for game seven in the ban-less grand final).This is partially due to the tendencies of progamers, who typically prefer to play on 'standard' macro maps. However, some maps are too flawed or imbalanced to fault progamers for being conservative. A map like Dasan Station might force creativity with its incredibly close rush distance and exploitable backdoor ramp, but it's a type of creativity that's completely out of sync with the rest of professional StarCraft II. Catallena’s asymmetrical layout creates game situations that one can't even prepare for, with inconsistent creep expansion patterns at different spawn positions actually affecting the 2017 grand final. An absolute worst case scenario would see a map like the infamous Daedalus Point —utterly broken in a single match-up—slip into the Global Finals. Vetoes are mostly able to keep those maps out of best of three series, but they will slip through into best of fives and sevens. The result is underwhelming gameplay and dissatisfying games.How could the situation be improved? One solution would be to let the Global Finalists select the map pool fromThe sixteen finalists are determined more than a month before the tournament—they could submit their votes on the seven (or more) maps they want played at BlizzCon from the ENTIRE pool of ladder maps that year. All player votes would be added together and the maps receiving the most votes would form the map pool.Not only would this protect the competition from being diluted by flawed maps, but it would allow the return of proven battlegrounds that had cycled out of the map pool. BlizzCon is supposed to be the culmination of an entire year of competitive StarCraft. All the best maps—from start to finish—should be celebrated. Players should be able to show the full extent on their skills on the very best maps.Of course, there are some problems with this solution. If the racial balance of the Global Final participants isn't perfect, players from the most-represented race would naturally vote for maps that worked in their favor. Nine Terrans, Protoss, or Zerg could force through a map pool favorable to their race, something that would put them at a distinct advantage.One possible workaround is weighting votes equally by race. Another is to simply use the player voting as a reference while Blizzard curates their own master list.Another issue is player practice. While many players find designated practice partners to help them prepare for BlizzCon, there are still players who rely heavily on ladder play. This may not be a big deal for Code S players who are used to playing on GSL's non-ladder maps, but WCS Circuit players may find it hard to adjust.Issues can be worked out and the exact implementation can be determined through careful consideration. The core premise is the same: Expanding the BlizzCon map pool to encompass the entire year and giving the players a say would improve the Global Finals.A change like this would give the sixteen best players in the world a chance to play at their absolute highest level, while viewers would get to see why these battlefields and combatants were the best of 2018. The final product would be a competition more worthy of Blizzard’s vision for WCS.Good proposal. Unbalanced maps not only cause race imbalances, but also make the games less fun to watch for viewers.None.It's good.I think that the ladder maps are better, because it is easier to practice.Being harder to practice? And the chance that maps with skewed balance will be selected by the players.Blizzard selecting balanced maps in a fair manner.I think it is a good proposal, but I think that [race imbalance in voting] is a very big issue. It would be good if there was a halfway solution. SC2, as a game, is greatly affected by the mapsI think it’s a good idea.Instead of the ladder maps for the very last season, it would be good to choose among the whole year’s ladder maps.It's good. I think it would be possible to have fair map selection.None.N/AI think it’s a good proposal. It would be less convenient for the players’ practice, but it would give the fans some novel enjoyment. Also, BlizzCon is the conclusion of a year’s worth of tournaments, and it seems right that they use the maps that came before.If not for the previously mentioned problem where more players of one certain race qualify and maps favoring that race get picked more, I think it would be okay.N/A Credits and acknowledgements



Writer:

Editor:

Photos:



Writer: Mizenhauer Editor: Wax Photos: Helena Kristiansson

ZigguratOfUr Profile Blog Joined April 2012 Iraq 16059 Posts Last Edited: 2018-07-25 02:15:47 #2 I'd much rather have Blizzard pick the maps from the entire year than players. Selecting maps from the entire year by itself solves the problem of bad maps that we didn't know were bad maps before they got played from getting in. Adding player input just adds more problems (such as those mentioned in the article), and also the problem that players like to play on the most dull and generic maps possible, where they can do their regular stuff without ever adapting.



Of course Blizzard would have to try to create a balanced map pool (even if you have seven maps which are fine by themselves, you still have a problem if six of them slightly favours terran in TvZ for example), which they aren't very good at, but what can you do.



The worst solution would of course be to get the public to vote on the maps going in.



Additionally with the timing of TLMC 11 it wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard introduced a new map pool after WCS Montreal so that Blizzcon would be played on maps that haven't been played in a big tournament before. Maps I made recently: Nevermore: https://i.imgur.com/NiqR0Rj.jpg | Rubaiyat: https://i.imgur.com/XD3E3vd.jpg | Grand Canal: https://i.imgur.com/kNgyOCo.jpg

Topher_Doll Profile Joined August 2015 United States 76 Posts Last Edited: 2018-07-25 03:00:53 #3 Why do the players need to be involved at all in terms of voting? Wouldn't it just be easier to pick the least vetoed maps or the maps with the most balanced ones? Adding player voting just adds more issues and even in your little survey they don't seem to care about voting, so if it creates problems and even the players don't want it, why do it that way?



I don't mind it but I do think practice matters a great deal and your only response to that problem was "Issues can be worked out and the exact implementation can be determined through careful consideration" so we have no meaningful solutions yet other than "future us can figure it out."



I do think it is a good idea but without removing the player voting and no solution for practice I'm not sold on it. I like the idea but I'm not sold on it without solving those two issues. But the premise is important, a bad ladder map selection shouldn't be the choice for the biggest tournament.



But does that mean we change the map pool for the IEM Championship as well since it is similarly important in terms of quality and money? No idea, just a thought.



EDIT: After reading a few comments about how this idea would lead to just 7 samey games is making me rethink the idea at the core. I had issues with the HOW the maps would be chosen I didn't think how it would lead to all the maps and games playing out the same. I'm not sure that I like that idea now that someone pointed that out. I'm a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

haik Profile Joined July 2018 1 Post Last Edited: 2018-07-25 02:25:19 #4 I do like the idea on principle, BUT: the biggest issue here is map diversity. That's something that Blizzard has been pushing hard since last year, and that's why we always have at least one "wonky" map and 2 "a bit different" ones per season.

If we go with this proposal,and let players vote, you can bet that will have the most bog-standard of maps picked.

Catalyst - Lost an Found - Acid Plant - Black Pink.

Every series.

Yes, players would love this - but would it be "good" for the games? Like, we had some very memorable games on some of the less-standard maps this year.

SidianTheBard Profile Joined October 2010 United States 2208 Posts #5 The best idea to have the most balanced map pool would be maybe a month before, have Blizzard find the least vetoed maps and/or most balanced maps, put them together and force them on ladder for that final month. Could be the "Global Finals 2018 Season". Then the pros will get their month or so to be able to practice the maps on ladder and it will be on all different mostly balanced maps.



In regards to @haik above, that reasoning is pretty bleh considering even complete most bog-standard maps can still produce the wonky proxy / 2 base all-in or they can produce the super standard game. That's the best part about the super standard maps, they are able to do anything as long as it's a good map.



The other question, for instance just taking the top 7 most picked maps of 2016 & 2017 leaves us with:

Ascension to Aiur, Abyssal Reef, Odyssey, King Sejong, Frozen Temple, Galactic Process & Frost.



Now, in those two years, those were the 7 most played maps, but if say that was the map pool for 2018, would say Ascension and KSS still be the most played? Or were they only the most played because there was a handful of other "unbalanced" maps. Could you expect that season to have, say 15 total plays for each map or would certain ones still stand out above the rest.



Wonky maps are fine, hell, I've made my fair share of them but when it comes to seeing who is the best of the best, I'd prefer every game be played on super standard well balanced maps because at that point, planning your strategies in those BoX series will really help the player who works harder. Creator of Abyssal Reef, Ascension to Aiur, Battle on the Boardwalk, Habitation Station, Honorgrounds, IPL Darkness Falls, King's Cove, Korhal Carnage Knockout & Moonlight Madness.

Avexyli Profile Blog Joined April 2014 United States 686 Posts Last Edited: 2018-07-25 02:54:04 #6 One solution would be to let the Global Finalists select the map pool from all the maps played during the competitive year.



I think this might be the worst idea I've read in a long, long time.



If players helped us test our maps more often, and we had better categories in the TLMCs that favor well made maps with variety rather than shoe-horning specific content (rush maps, 4p maps, 3p maps, gold base maps, scrap station maps) then we'd see improvement across the board.....



edit: in fact arent you the guy who said every game should be played on overgrowth? That alone should be quite disqualifying... I think this might be the worst idea I've read in a long, long time.If players helped us test our maps more often, and we had better categories in the TLMCs that favor well made maps with variety rather than shoe-horning specific content (rush maps, 4p maps, 3p maps, gold base maps, scrap station maps) then we'd see improvement across the board.....edit: in fact arent you the guy who said every game should be played on overgrowth? That alone should be quite disqualifying... AVEX - 1st place TLMC8 & 9 (and 3rd and 4th, respectively), 2nd place TLMC11, 3x Finalist of TLMC7 (5th), 3x Finalist of TLMC10 (5th)

franzji Profile Joined September 2013 United States 571 Posts #7 The difficult thing about picking "The best" or "most played" maps from the last year is you are going to get a bunch of very similar maps for the whole finals.



Then you get the argument of map variety and the strategy + different game play none ultra standard maps bring.

Timmay Profile Joined April 2005 United States 107 Posts #8 So you came up with the idea for players to pick the map pool, and then only asked players if it was a good idea. Of course they are going to side with you. Players value comfort over everything else. They want to win, and viewer entertainment is not something they value if they want to compete. If you want a better perspective, why not ask commentators or some other interest group who would value entertainment over comfort?

Waxangel Profile Blog Joined September 2002 United States 29169 Posts Last Edited: 2018-07-25 02:56:32 #9 I know that fans like to have the "weird" maps, but they're implemented in the current WCS/BlizzCon system in way that really doesn't serve anyone. They're basically bannable until the super late rounds of a tournament where they suddenly pop-up. Fans don't get to see them all that often, players end up not having to practice for them until the absolute most crucial moment, and fans don't get to see them played at max preparation.



You have to 'force' the integration of weird maps like they did in the old GSL system, where the first map in a series is predetermined by the organizer, before any vetoes come in. But then Daedalus Point happened, revealing why that can be a bad, bad, bad idea.



I'm not particularly interested in seeing all BO3's narrowed down to the same four macro maps, but I'm also not particularly interested in Dasan randomly showing up in game seven of the grand finals. Administrator Hey HP can you redo everything youve ever done because i have a small complaint?

Avexyli Profile Blog Joined April 2014 United States 686 Posts #10 The players will never accept any responsibility that they could have a heavy hand in helping balance maps, they just expect everything to piece together perfectly and we'll always just have new ideas like Abyssal just work out the gate.



How do we let the players choose the maps when we have yearly balance and design changes that could, and would affect map design? Does anyone else think that players should responsible for helping test these new ideas and working towards a more diverse ability to design new things? Or no, we can just fuck off on Overgrowth for the next 200 years. That sounds so much fun.



AVEX - 1st place TLMC8 & 9 (and 3rd and 4th, respectively), 2nd place TLMC11, 3x Finalist of TLMC7 (5th), 3x Finalist of TLMC10 (5th)

Waxangel Profile Blog Joined September 2002 United States 29169 Posts Last Edited: 2018-07-25 03:18:43 #11 On July 25 2018 12:00 Avexyli wrote:

The players will never accept any responsibility that they could have a heavy hand in helping balance maps, they just expect everything to piece together perfectly and we'll always just have new ideas like Abyssal just work out the gate.



How do we let the players choose the maps when we have yearly balance and design changes that could, and would affect map design? Does anyone else think that players should responsible for helping test these new ideas and working towards a more diverse ability to design new things? Or no, we can just fuck off on Overgrowth for the next 200 years. That sounds so much fun.





Pro-player testing is bad in just about every esports game, not just StarCraft II (Dota, LoL, CS fans have all seen plenty of broken shit make it to live). Incentives just don't align for pros to commit extensive time to testing things that don't benefit them in immediate competition. Unless developers can conclusively demonstrate that there are REAL long-term benefits to helping to test things that aren't in actual competition (I don't think is obvious at all), and implement feedback systems that make players feel like they're not wasting their time, it will remain that way forever. Pro-player testing is bad in just about every esports game, not just StarCraft II (Dota, LoL, CS fans have all seen plenty of broken shit make it to live). Incentives just don't align for pros to commit extensive time to testing things that don't benefit them in immediate competition. Unless developers can conclusively demonstrate that there are REAL long-term benefits to helping to test things that aren't in actual competition (I don't think is obvious at all), and implement feedback systems that make players feel like they're not wasting their time, it will remain that way forever. Administrator Hey HP can you redo everything youve ever done because i have a small complaint?

Boggyb Profile Joined January 2017 2855 Posts #12 Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.

ZigguratOfUr Profile Blog Joined April 2012 Iraq 16059 Posts #13 On July 25 2018 13:09 Boggyb wrote:

Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.



I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments. I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments. Maps I made recently: Nevermore: https://i.imgur.com/NiqR0Rj.jpg | Rubaiyat: https://i.imgur.com/XD3E3vd.jpg | Grand Canal: https://i.imgur.com/kNgyOCo.jpg

Boggyb Profile Joined January 2017 2855 Posts #14 On July 25 2018 13:20 ZigguratOfUr wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 25 2018 13:09 Boggyb wrote:

Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.



I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments. I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments.

Maybe instead of just sometimes rigging the playoff brackets to avoid a ZvZ final a tournament organizer would channel ASL Season 5's map pool which was designed to make Flash work for another title and chose an anti-Zerg map pool. Maybe instead of just sometimes rigging the playoff brackets to avoid a ZvZ final a tournament organizer would channel ASL Season 5's map pool which was designed to make Flash work for another title and chose an anti-Zerg map pool.

ZigguratOfUr Profile Blog Joined April 2012 Iraq 16059 Posts #15 On July 25 2018 13:36 Boggyb wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 25 2018 13:20 ZigguratOfUr wrote:

On July 25 2018 13:09 Boggyb wrote:

Would increasing the ladder map pool from 7 maps to 9 help with the issue? On the one hand, that would give players a large pool of maps to select from and would allow vetos even in bests of 7. On the other hand, players would likely still end up playing the same cluster of maps. Of course, if that cluster went from 4 maps to 5, that's a huge improvement for the viewing experience.



I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments. I've been of the opinion that the ladder pool's size should be increase to 9 or 11 for years now. The tournament pool size could probably stay on 7 maps picked from among those on ladder by the tournament organizer. Like that we can avoid seeing maps that are huge misses in tournaments, organizers could select a pool to be balanced in the various match-ups, and we could even get some diversity among the map pools of tournaments.

Maybe instead of just sometimes rigging the playoff brackets to avoid a ZvZ final a tournament organizer would channel ASL Season 5's map pool which was designed to make Flash work for another title and chose an anti-Zerg map pool. Maybe instead of just sometimes rigging the playoff brackets to avoid a ZvZ final a tournament organizer would channel ASL Season 5's map pool which was designed to make Flash work for another title and chose an anti-Zerg map pool.



Choosing slanted map pools is an age old tradition in BW. How else could you make sure the legend of the fall survived? Choosing slanted map pools is an age old tradition in BW. How else could you make sure the legend of the fall survived? Maps I made recently: Nevermore: https://i.imgur.com/NiqR0Rj.jpg | Rubaiyat: https://i.imgur.com/XD3E3vd.jpg | Grand Canal: https://i.imgur.com/kNgyOCo.jpg

RealityTheGreat Profile Joined January 2018 China 555 Posts #16 The maps in 13 and 14 is best. Betrayed, forgotten, abandoned.

starkiller123 Profile Joined January 2016 United States 3169 Posts #17 Man I want King Sejong Station back, probably my favorite map of all time. I also think Terraform was a fun map and should come back

RealityTheGreat Profile Joined January 2018 China 555 Posts #18 On July 25 2018 14:28 starkiller123 wrote:

Man I want King Sejong Station back, probably my favorite map of all time. I also think Terraform was a fun map and should come back

Terraform is a weird map Terraform is a weird map Betrayed, forgotten, abandoned.

Ej_ Profile Blog Joined January 2013 47288 Posts #19 Absolutely ridiculous that actual progamers who know all maps in and out would have a say in deciding what a million dollar tournament map pool would look like. Can't they just shut up and play on new, interesting and blatantly imbalanced maps that I, the viewer enjoy? "Technically the dictionary has zero authority on the meaning or words" - Rodya

Dingodile Profile Joined December 2011 4035 Posts #20 submit 9 maps and place 3rd to 9th will be chosen. Grubby | ToD | Moon | Lyn | Sky

1 2 3 Next All