Training With The Pros: mOOnGLaDe

Training With The Pros: mOOnGLaDe

Welcome to Training With The Pros, a week-long series where we’ll be talking to some of Australia’s best professional gamers to find out who they are and what tips they have for those aspiring to play at their level. First up is Andrew “mOOnGLaDe” Pender, the top-ranked StarCraft II player in all of South East Asia.

A quick search of Andrew Pender’s gaming handle, mOOnGLaDe, reveals why he is the top-ranked StarCraft II player in Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand, and other countries in the South Eastern Asian region. Representing the entire region at international StarCraft II tournaments, mOOnGLaDe has played against some of the best in the world (the featured video shows his recent match against South Korea’s top-ranked player, oGsTOP) and regularly leaves his opponents biting the dust. Even those who know little about pro-gaming can’t help but be impressed by the level that he plays at. So who is this kangaroo plush toy-carrying character and how did he become Australia’s best player?

Can you introduce yourself to the Kotaku community?
Hello! My name is Andrew Pender, also known as mOOnGLaDe in StarCraft II. I play as Zerg and I’ve been gaming competitively for about eight years now.

You’re clearly a huge fan of StarCraft II, but what was the first game you ever loved and what was so special about it?
The first game I ever loved competitively was StarCraft I. When I learned about the pro-gaming scene in Korea for it I was so fascinated by it. I was still in high school and it became my dream to reach that level and experience what it’s like.

At which point did you decide to become a professional StarCraft II player? What is it about the game that drives you to want to compete on such a high level?
After years of playing Warcraft 3 competitively as more of a hardcore hobby than anything, I decided I would try my best to do well in StarCraft II, so I played as much as I could from the very beginning. StarCraft II was the shining hope for the RTS competitive scene, as Blizzard RTS games usually are, so there was going to be a lot of people backing it, pushing the competitive scene forward, so I decided it was the game to focus on.

Describe a typical training session.
Usually my training sessions are kind of dependant on how I feel, but the rule I have before a major competition is at least 30 games a day, which is about 5-8 hours of playing, sometimes more if I feel good and want to keep going, but it’s important not to burn out! And it is also important to focus on physical training as well; healthy body and mind. It’s good to focus on something else to take a break from time to time.

What are some rookie moves that you often see people make when playing StarCraft II?
I guess the most hardest thing to master in StarCraft in general is the macro side, where a player has to continuously make units and buildings no matter what is happening in the game, and that is the biggest problem for rookie players and something that takes a lot of practice to overcome.

What tips do you have for someone who is hoping to play at your level?

Practice practice practice, study replays to analyse build orders and study replays of your losses to learn what you did wrong. Keep a cool head and don’t rage if you lose.

What does your gaming set-up look like?

With thanks to Kotaku friend Zorine “Harli” Te for her assistance.


        • In terms of Reach, you’re dealing with something that is a skill barrier. I would love to see 99% of players pulling off the feats that the pros perform in terms of weapon use, not to mention the strategy that is involved in team games.

          In terms of Starcraft 2 though, I would find it difficult to call any unit overpowered (except for buffed infestors, those guys are dicks). If all you did in that was produce one unit that you consider “overpowered”, then your opponent will simply counter it. SC2 is as much about reading your opponent(unless you’re ACE, who just blind counters) as it is handling the complex aspects of Macro and Micro.

          • I’d love to see that too. I’d also love to see weapon variety. But in it’s current state all headshot weapons are broken and overpowered, leaving all non-power weapons pointless. But all “pro” players demand that everybody plays the game with the same weapon, completely eliminating the variety aspect that Halo built itself upon.

            I’ve never played Starcraft 2 to know what’s overpowered or not, but I do remember hearing plenty of people complaining about underpowered units. Starcraft is hard to judge because it seems like it’s not really about using the right units as it’s more about who can click the fastest. I’ve seen units win over fights they shouldn’t have, such as two Medics destroying an entire fleet of Carriers mainly because of excessive microing that the Carriers couldn’t keep up with. There’s something wrong when a support class can destroy something that’s used for an end-game.

          • Well I’d say that’s clear.

            I’d be quite impressed if a medic killed anything.

            Hell, I’d be even more impressed if a medic appeared in SC2.

            That said, everyone always bitches about overpowered v. underpowered units. Reapers used to be an overpowered unit, except for the fact that any number of stalkers and good game sense could counter them. Hellions used to never be used in TvT, until BoxeR and some other pro level guys popularised them, causing a monumental shift in how the game worked. Not only can the games consist of back and forths, but so does the meta game on top of that.

          • Screams of OP only applies because of 2 things

            1) People just aren’t able to adapt and tech the counters fast enough and hence scream OP even though high end players are more than capable of stopping it.

            2) A player uses a unit in such a unique way that no one has been able to figure out before and creates such a convincing winw/ the unit its deemed godly/op

          • I love the way this sort of thing happens not just in strategy games but even in FPS. You will see one tactic take dominance in a game type and other units/abilities will be neglected until someone comes up with a great strategy using the neglected units/abilities and you will see it take over. Then will come the ways in which to counter it.

            I don’t play much SC2 but I have seen this plenty of times even in FPS. In MW1 many people used martyrdom where you drop a grenade at death to kill the foolish enemy that runs over your body. After a while people didn’t run over dead bodies due to this perk, so people stopped using it and moved on to others like last stand. Then once most weren’t expecting it, many moved back to martrydom to trick the enemy.

            The same could be seen in the Halo Reach games. Most people loved the jetpack at first but then people learned how to make use of armour lock really well. You could lock and unlock quickly enough to nullify a melee attack and return with your own, if an enemy stood too close the emp would knock off their shields and they would go down.

            Once people learnt to stay away and wait armour lock fell out of favour for other abilities like sprint. Then people started to run around in pairs both with armour lock, alternating who was locked and who wasn’t so they could take on enemies without either one every dying.

            Long post, but I just love seeing these evolving strategies in games.

      • There’s a couple things pro-gamers do that avg joe’s don’t. They use the powerful builds well, with as few mistakes as possible. In the top competitions it often comes down to who made the first mistake, or was out manouvered and taken by surprise and thats it. They punish that misplay hard. The other thing is innovate; they come up with the power plays first and everyone else starts copying them. I guess the third thing would be consistancy. Anyone can have a good came, but can you have 20 in a row?

      • Nice assumption. I’ve seen plenty. They dance back and forth until one side gets in a lucky ability spam and then overwhelm the opposition.

          • That’s pretty much all I see in all videos. Two blobs of units keep approaching then running away from each other until one side throws down a shield, or web or something then gets rushed by the rest of the units. Sometimes when they get rushed they themselves get spammed by an ability to even it out but that’s the majority of what I see.

          • Either you’re trolling or you don’t understand the mechanics of the game. Also it’s very rare for a professional game to involve no harassment and therefore ‘two blobs approaching and running away’ is rare until both teams are 200/200, and then there is a lot going behind the scenes including macro and expansion harassment. Not to mention for your ‘blob’ to destroy his, you need to scout to get the right unit composition and counter his units.

            So no, its not excessively abusing overpowered weapons, abilities and units.

          • Don’t know why you’re specifically talking about Starcraft when I’m talking about all games in general…

            Most harassment I see is early game and later only on expansions. Besides, I’m talking about what I’ve usually seen, I don’t spend hours every night watching Starcraft matches on Youtube. Macro and expansions are usually ignored by the person “filming” the game. So it’s their problem if I can’t see everything that happens in the game.

          • It’s the only game I watch competitively nowadays. DOTA2 too soon, so long as Valve implement good competitive features.

            I know you can’t see everything in the game, I’m guessing you don’t own the game and I’m explaining that there’s a lot behind the scenes involved. If you built the most powerful units every game, take brood lords for example, your opponent can just counter with anti-air and win. Each unit has a counter, which is one of the things that makes it so interesting to watch.

          • That’s fine, if Starcraft is your main interest it would make sense to watch many online matches to get tips or strategies. I mainly play Halo and can easily point out what’s broken.
            DotA is another problem with me. If you’re not chased out immediately because you have’t spent 1,000 hours on the game then it boils down to who can get the advantage first. It’s fine at first, but once one side destroys a tower, kills a hero and levels up, has one team member leave, etc. then it’s all down hill from there. There’s really no chance to have a come-back and win the match, once you start losing you’ve already lost. Hopefully DotA2 will be more balanced and give players a reason to keep on fighting.

            Yeah, but I do know what usually goes on behind the game. I did play Warcraft back in the day and did see some awesome stuff that wasn’t shown on videos, which focused more on fights.
            Counters can also be a problem if you’re not careful. While it does make sense that they’re designed as a hard/soft counter, sometimes it is possible to make them overpowered. If you attack with 50 air units and they can manage to defend themself with a single anti-air turret then clearly the anti-air turret is overpowered even as a counter.

          • “Don’t know why you’re specifically talking about Starcraft when I’m talking about all games in general…”

            September 5, 2011 at 12:18 PM
            Seriously? Wow, you’ve obviously never seen a competitive game of Starcraft then.

            September 5, 2011 at 12:22 PM
            Nice assumption. I’ve seen plenty. They dance back and forth until one side gets in a lucky ability spam and then overwhelm the opposition.

            September 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM

            Not quite.

            September 5, 2011 at 12:30 PM
            That’s pretty much all I see in all videos.

            Uh-huh, I’d imagine that’s why.

          • What’s clear is that Neo-Kaiser doesn’t seem to understand what he’s talking about when it comes to competitive gaming. Working under the assumption that the best are only the best because they use the best tools available in game is one of the scrubbiest arguments around.

            It’s like throws in SF. If you can’t tech them then they’re cheap and broken and blah blah blah. They’re part of the game, part of the toolset available and if you aren’t using them and defending against them your opponent will use them against you.

            Same goes for the high power weapons in Halo. They’re a vital tool but there are other factors to consider (map position etc) and in SC2 it is about using the right tools in the right situation.

    • So you’re saying someone who had never played SC2 or Halo could beat a pro just by using something “overpowered”?

      • No, I’m saying “pros” limit themselves to playing with overpowered weapons. Although there are some guns or abilities that take less effort to use then other weapons. That’s how the popular term “Noob tube” came up, because it’s usually easy to use and even low-skilled players can abuse it to get cheap kills.

          • But it’s limiting the game. It’s why I could never take Smash Bros. seriously (especially hwne it’s supposed to be goofy fun). They limit the game down to only a few fighters, on the same map, with no items.

          • All games/sports are the same though. Fighting games always use the same few characters, FPS always use the same setup.
            At least in SC2, most units have a hard-counter. Sure, there’s a few units that probably don’t have as many counters, but players with better macro/micro can overcome that.

          • Which I don’t agree with. What’s the point in including them if nobody is going to use them? I’m in favour of everything in a game being balanced and able to be used effectively rather then just being ignored because it’s “not strong enough”.

            Even in SF4, the latest MLG round-up had 2/3s of players using the same 2 characters, clearly defining those characters as overpowered.

          • It limits the game, but then watching pros go against each other is exciting as it becomes a game of whoever plays the best. At least imo

          • If it’s just the same matches over and over again then there’s really no point in watching since they’re all going to be the same. Variety allows different outcomes that can surpise you.

            and it’s not exciting if the game comes down to luck.

          • That’s where you are wrong though. In top-tier pro games, class/race/character has nothing to do in a vs. match.

          • SF4 is not played at MLG.

            Arcade Edition is very imbalanced with a high focus on the twins (Yun and Yang) but the top eight for the biggest fighting game tournament in the world was as follows:

            1st: Fei Long
            2nd: C. Viper
            3rd: Seth
            4th: Yun
            5th (equal): Yun
            5th (equal): Akuma
            7th (equal): C. Viper
            7th (equal): Zangief/C. Viper (the guy used both characters).

            Three of the top eight had C.Viper but she’s only an upper tier character, not a top tier.

            Seth is low tier and the guy using him (Poongko) came pretty damned close to getting to the Grand Finals.

            How powerful the character is gives you an advantage. Winning still depends on the player and not all players will go for the most powerful character if they can play better with a less powerful character.

          • Yeah, but if two players are the same in skill then it will depend on which character that’s stronger is chosen. Seems a bit unfair that you can lose a competition just because another character is stronger then yours.

          • Dude thats just a bit wrong. Firstly each character can’t “just be better then the others” Each character you have to use a different strategy with. The people who play with these characters know their strategies to counter other players.

          • Match-ups in Street Fighter are generally worked out on a best of 10 basis. So if you take two characters (for the sake of example, Ken and Ryu).

            If there are two players of equal skill playing ten matches and the match-up is 6-4 in Ryu’s favour (most match-ups are 6-4 or 5-5, with the odd 7-3), the Ryu should win 6 rounds and Ken the other 4.

            That’s assuming exactly equal skill. If the Ken is slightly better than the Ryu then the whole tiers things is completely meaningless.

            Really, in practise it doesn’t mean that much and player skill plays a significantly higher role than tiers.

            After all, Poongko got top 8 at Evo with Seth who has horrible match-ups (I think most of the match-ups were against him) and he even took out Daigo. Daigo was the favourite to win the tournament using the most powerful character and he still lost to Poongko using one of the weakest characters.

          • Achieving perfect balance in a game is the goal of almost all competitive games. The point many replying to you are trying to make is that most of the time, x unit is not underpowered and y unit is not overpowered. x unit just isnt being used right or the counter to y unit just isnt being utilised. Its only ever until people see a pro use x unit right that people scream overpowered.

            Screaming overpowered is a very big statement though because half the time, the new strategy formed with x unit is very new and people have not thought about an effective way to deal with it. It usually takes extensive testing and gameplay to truly determine whether a unit is overpowered or not and even then, they could be wrong. That’s why blizzard doesn’t release a new patch nerfing the overpowered unit as soon as someone shouts overpowered. (Note: I am generally talking about SC2)

            As for you saying that its stupid when for example, 2 marines take down 20 zerglings. It is still a big statement to cry overpowered especially when you dont know the mechanics. When you see an outmatched unit beat their attackers in SC2 it IS mostly to do with strategy. For example, the 2 marines could have held out in a chokehold to prevent themselves getting surrounded. Competitive gameplay in SC2 is very in depth and until you understand all the core mechanics, you probably shouldnt make big statements such as yours.

          • Yes, discovering a new strategy, weapon or tactic is good and I won’t immediately say it’s overpowered until I can see a way to counter it or prevent it happening. Experimenting this way is what I’m defending and players should do this more often to expand the variety in gameplay and keep all players on their toes.

            But there are some cases where no matter how much you try you’ll always lose to an overpowered weapon. I have tried every non-power weapon against the DMR in Halo: Reach and the majority of the time they win by spamming the trigger. Even if I get the jump on them and shoot them a lot more then they shoot me, they can win the fight with little effort and never have to worry about negative repercussions, because there are none for the DMR.

            Yes, there are other variables you can take into account (Again, with an overpowered weapon the variables become less and less). But there are moments when it does become ridiculous. A chokepoint is good but if you have a very low defense and they have a high attack then they should win regardless of good positioning, or unless you’re keeping them off for more units to join in.

          • Yes you are correct, if a unit is truly overpowered then no strategy in the world will be able to beat it.

            In SC2 there arent that many cases where a unit becomes overpowered in the literal sense. It has happened sometimes (I think), and if it does happen, then blizzard are quick to patch up the game and bring it back to balance.

            That is also one of the things that SC2 probably has over Halo in terms of competitive play. SC2 constantly updates to re-work balance. Whereas, I think in Halo, the release version is the final version.

          • I don’t play against super high level players but in my experience there are plenty of strategies to counter the DMR.

            An assault rifle followed by a bash at close range should kill them before they can kill you with it.

            If you throw a grenade before they get off their first shot it should explode and knock off shields which you can follow up with a headshot with DRM or pistol, if you only have an AR you probably won’t make it in time.

            If you have sprint you should be able to sprint to them before they get off their second shot, in which case you can melee them then they will either melee you, but you won’t die as they only have 1 or 2 shots on you, or they will keep shooting in which case you follow up with another melee to kill.

            Of course many strategies depend on location, cover, visibility, armour ability and weapons available.

          • Another example to do with strategy and not broken game balance.

            2 immortals vs 8 stalkers

            Sure, the immortals are outnumbered and stalkers are great units, but immortals are the direct counter to stalkers, so generally the immortals should win (but I havent played in a year or so, so maybe the stats have changed).

            However, if the stalkers manage to trap the immortals in a bad position so that only 1 immortal is in range to fire, the stalkers can easily take down BOTH the immortals (kill each of them 1 by 1). There are all these small skill/strategy based mechanics in the game that can often turn the game around even when it seems like one clearly has the advantage over the other.

            If you manage to get in touch with any pro SC2 player and ask them why they lost, they will most likely tell you that it wasnt due to overpowered/underpowered units but due to their mistakes or the skill level of the other player.

            In regards to your experience with Halo, well I havent played halo competitively. If you say there are some overpowered weapons in halo, I cant say anything about that. But then again, halo isnt as big a competitive game as SC2 now is it? Generally games that have no competitive depth to it dont become as big in the competitive scene.

          • Yes, that’s good strategy. That’s the kind of thing I’m encouraging and defending. But sometimes there comes a point where even experimenting or trying new things will still fall to what everybody keeps falling back on. Although I’m talking about in general for all games, from what I’ve seen there’s rarely an OP unit in an RTS, but there’s usually UP units that needs patching. In FPS on the other hand it’s the opposite, there’s usually one gun that can’t be beat that everybody always selects. I’m all for buffing underpowered weapons or units so long as it gives them a place that people can find a use for. Why bother including them if they’re going to be ignored?

            Halo: Reach is different in that they found a way to update the game without needing patches. They can alter the rules, gametypes, weapon placement and the map without needing to patch the game, which is what they’ve been relying on, which is what I think game companies should do more often. But now Bungie isn’t in charge of Halo and moved on. The new 343i studio is bringing out an update that changes the game and adds new rules and options. You don’t see many patches on 360 games because of Microsofts policy to charge the game company for releasing the patch.

  • The problem with SC2 is that it seems so non-approachable for a newbie of the RTS genre like me. I’d get destroyed if I didn’t have 9000 APM.

    But I guess that’s why they are pros and I’m not.

    • Bah, their APM’s aren’t that high. HuK, Mr. “Top 3 Micro” only averages around 250 APM while stuff is going on.

    • You’re not gonna play your first game and beat a pro obviously, just like a local footy team won’t beat someone in the NRL/AFL. But once you’ve adjusted to the game mechanics and learnt the units, you’d have no trouble playing on the ladder and competing strongly. Give it a shot!

      • I’m pretty certain I could beat the Parramatta Eels in a game of footy.

        But on a more serious note. That divide between casual players and pro players will always exist in every game played competitively. But RTS games seem to have almost no middle ground at all.

        But then again, what do I know. Last RTS i really played was Warcraft 3

        • That’s the thing with the SC2 ladder system though. There’s bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, master and grand master (i don’t think I’m missing any). All the pros are obviously master and grand master. I’m silver. I play bronze, silver and gold players, and lose/win to all three. The matchmaking is pretty damn good in SC2 and because it has such a large community (for an RTS) there’s a pretty decent middle ground as you mentioned. 🙂

          • I’m Gold, and I beat Plat’s, lose to Gold’s, and have about even rates v. Silver’s.

            There is way too much Cheese in Gold League.

          • Too much cheese full stop.

            Prepare for normal game? Lose to cheese.
            Prepare for cheese? Lose to normal game.

            Can’t win T_T

          • I think the worst is when you get out-cheesed.

            I lost to a bronze guy doing a cannon rush because I took too long getting my proxy gates up.

            So fail.

            And this is why my only strategy now is to macro. Macro like a boss. So I always lose in the first ten minutes…

          • Yeah, there was quite a bit of cheese in Gold, I think it’s died down a bit now, I do however play on the NA server. After a while, you find a build that can hold of most things and then learn to alter it slightly or how to react completely to stop a cheese. Although as you said, sometimes people do really really wierd things.

    • As someone who is just getting into SC2, I’m not sure that you’re right.

      There is a base level of skill required to be competitive but you can obtain that just by practising. The actual physical task is very simple, I’m confident that I can physically perform 300+ APM. The problem for me is that I cannot mentally perform them. I haven’t learned what actions I should be doing and in what situations I should be focusing on specific actions.

      SC2 is nowhere near as micro intensive as SC. I’ve even heard of people getting into Diamond league without microing a single unit, simply macroing a giant army and going to town on their opponent.

      • Yerp, I remember reading an article from a dude who built nothing but stalkers and managed to make diamond. It’s amazing what good macro can do for you.

          • Hey, 100 Sentries beats 100 mutas. Although, that does require guardian shield…

            Ok, so, yes, they are the best T1 unit Protoss can get, but they are so easily countered, and their dps is so bad for their cost(vs. non-armoured). Their main advantages are their speed, which doesn’t come into effect if you’re just a-clicking, and their range, which only kind of comes into the picture.

          • I heard Blink is a pretty cool ability.

            Plus, you know upgrades.

            And the whole “when all you have is a hammer” type situation that Protoss tend to find themselves in.

          • Infestor says “what?”

            But yeah, I’m protoss and I’m still not 100% sure when to use stalkers, especially when they don’t have blink. I’m leaning towards zealot/archon compositions a lot more lately, I love it. Marauders dominate them and one immortal will rip them apart (especially with their buff this patch).

          • I play Zerg and used infestors in three games in a row yesterday and I still can’t figure out how they’re supposed to be overpowered. I understand they have a strong ability, but it’s a bitch to pull off accurate micro with them, especially now that the affect isn’t instant. When you consider that the best long-range Zerg unit is the Brood Lord, which takes ages to get to and can be terminated by Vikings unless you macro enough to get mass Corruptors, it seems to me that Infestors are answering the need created by Tanks, Thors and Colossi.

          • It’s a skill cap issue.

            Until you get to a certain level, Infestors are nearly useless. Once you get past that level, they’re insane.

            Just look at Destiny’s infestor heavy play to see what someone with good micro can do with them.

            They’re more in line with High Templar, Ghosts and Ravens where a couple of well used abilities can turn an unfavourable battle into a victory. The difference is that Infestors are simply better than High Templar, Ghosts and Ravens :p

          • I’m in Gold 1v1 and Diamond everything else. I don’t actually see them used that much – sometimes against mass lings, but only about 10% of the time. Probably need to look at the way others micro them, but I’m still struggling to see how they’re OP.

          • I’m thinking this is more of an issue in Masters and GM. Where Infestors are simply better than the other races’ spell casters and are becoming pretty much a standard unit as part of the ling/roach/hydra unit composition (this is obviously being very general).

            It might just be a case that people have found so many situations that they’re useful that they’re almost like sentries where there’s no reason not to get them. Of course, working on the assumption that your micro is good enough (which is a hell of an assumption and pointless to consider if we’re talking about Bronze/Silver/Gold level play).

          • Well infestors are certainly better than anything else Zerg has. So they probably seem overpowered by comparison. And they’ll probably keep seeming OP until Terran learn that they can’t run their bio force into a group of Infestors, just like they can’t run their bio force into a tank line.

            For a Zerg they’re pretty much the only option when you’re dealing with lots of marines and tanks. What’s the alternative? Hydra push?

          • @SupremeBeans

            “I’m in Gold 1v1 and Diamond everything else. […] Probably need to look at the way others micro them, but I’m still struggling to see how they’re OP.”

            Infestors are considered ‘OP’ because unlike the two other race ground casters with 1 extremely useful spell, 1 situational spell, 1 useless one, the Infestor has 3 which depending on use, range between ‘very good’ to ‘game-breaking’

            Yes, it does come down to execution. If they’re not used well, they just become gas sinks, but if they are, they are probably the best use/cost unit in the game.

            Infestors can harrass, can shut down drops and vikings (supplanting the role of the hydralisk, which is why you hardly ever see Hydras anymore), they can completely change the outcome of a battle by MCing a couple of key enemy units and are just as useful at defence. Even a paltry army of Lings or Mutas, if backed by a handful of Infestors is something to be feared.

          • The thing about infestors is mainly vs Protoss I think, as on most maps Zergs can tech to infestors relatively safely more quickly than the protoss can get to HT (I know you don’t absolutely need HT to deal with infestors, but once the infestors get into larger numbers HT are the most cost effective way), well that and the fact that most of the protoss army is ‘armoured’ and hence takes more fungal growth damage.

    • White-Ra, unquestionably one of the best players in the world, has an average apm of 150. I’ve seen him stream, so I know he actually does make superfluous actions such as spamming right-click on a single location. SC2 isn’t nearly as action-intensive as SC1 (where you couldn’t group buildings and you could only group 12 units together at a time), another pro named Goody even has sub-100 apm in some tournament matches.

    • I’m actually disappointed that this article makes no mention of the “Prince of Blades”, which is what he’s generally known as.

  • Peripheral companies take note – tenkeyless keyboard. I knew I wasn’t the only one that used them for gaming..

  • in terms of game-balance. it took SC1 Broodwars how many years to get it balanced…until they release SC2.
    it’s an on-going process.

  • I was curious to see who was number 1 on SEA, so I checked out his profile.

    I then clicked a random game in his history, and saw that the first item on his build order was a spawning pool.

    Yup, the #1 player 6 pooled a guy.

    • Cheese is a legitimate tactic. Even Korean pros cheese every now and then to keep their opponents on their toes. Someone who has a stagnant build, even if it’s very polished is very predictable. Jaedong (the best BW Z of all time) 6 pools every now and then, even in high-stakes games, and it just comes down to execution.

  • I love Moonglade, he comes off as perpetually drunk and is so nerdy it’s amazing. The “Clash of Kings” on the desk was the cherry on top.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!