[Interview] Forgotten_ - Legendary Mapmaker

Dear Friends,

We're living through tough times economically, politically and socially. During periods like these, it’s healthy to step away from all the negativity and focus on something uplifting for a change. After all, as T.S. Eliot once said, people can't handle too much reality.

With that in mind, and as spring approaches—something many of us in colder areas have eagerly awaited—we have a special interview with a legendary Korean mapmaker to brighten your day. So please join me in giving a warm welcome to Seungyun "Forgotten_" Cho. If you've followed this game since its early days, his name (or second alias “Terrance”) may already be familiar. Even if not, you surely remember the good times you had playing on his maps or watching the early esports scene grow on his creations.

So, let's dive right in and revisit the magic of Brood War’s golden era with our memorable friend, Forgotten_!

May I ask your age please?

I was born in 1985, so I’m currently 39 years old.

Did you follow StarCraft since 1998?

I first played StarCraft when the original game was released—I was 13 at the time. Later, when I was 18 in 2003, I entered college and started playing StarCraft more seriously.

What year did you start map making?

In 2004, OGN held its second map-making contest, and that’s when I opened the Campaign Editor for the first time. I submitted two tiny, experimental maps, and the second one—Dual Space—ended up winning 3rd prize. Later, it was renamed Valley of Wind. That’s when I really got into SC map-making. In 2005, when OMAT (OGN Map Architect Team) was formed, I joined the team. (Fun fact: I actually came up with the name OMAT!)

Why did you start map making?

Back when I was mainly playing Brood War (2001–2003), there were some tournament maps in rotation, but Lost Temple was by far the most dominant battleground. At the time, I felt that Protoss was at a significant disadvantage due to the presence of cliffed natural expansions. That got me thinking—if more diverse maps were introduced, it could make the
StarCraft scene even richer and more dynamic. That idea ultimately led me to start creating maps.

Why did you name yourself Forgotten_?

It’s forgotten. I think I just picked a random word at the time, kind of like how LoL pro players come up with their in-game names nowadays. Later on, the name sort of became my personal brand, so I just stuck with it.

Which mapmaker(s), if any, inspired or influenced you? For example, can you provide any names of map makers or maps that you really liked?

The most direct influence probably came from Rose.of.Dream, who was one of the main mapmakers around 2003–2004. Seeing Guillotine made me realize that maps could be used to balance out inherent imbalances in the game, and Paradox showed me that a map could completely redefine the metagame. Those ideas really shaped my approach to map design.

How long did it take you to become good at map making?

Back then, I was already studying at an engineering college, and now I’ve been working as a software engineer for 18 years. So, to be honest, I still don’t think I’m particularly talented at creating highly polished maps. What I’ve always been good at, though, is coming up with new concepts and refining them enough to be viable in the professional scene. However, when it came to the finer details—like aesthetic touches or balancing minor positional advantages—I was never that great, even up until the time I stopped map making. (Proof? I never made an official 3-player map! lol)

What did you do to get good at map making? Besides designing maps, were you also exchanging ideas and creations with other map makers? What was the map making community like back then?

Just like in software engineering, one of the best ways to improve is to
recreate existing products—or in this case, maps. There's a well-known
story about recreating Gaema Gowon during Valkyrie’s military service because Rose.of.Dream couldn't unlock the protected map file. In my case, I also built exact copies of maps like Bifrost, which helped me understand map structures and design principles.

Later, when we had an official team, we created a private forum (which I personally coded in PHP!) to share knowledge and exchange early drafts. I also remember being involved in introducing new ideas—such as SCMDraft, wider chokes, or the narrow entrance concept from 815—some of which I either discovered myself or brought in from foreign forums.

What are your top 3 favourite maps not made by you and can you explain why you chose them?

Bifrost, Guillotine, Plasma, Katrina

Bifrost
+ Show Spoiler +

I think this map set the standard for modern 2-player maps. It introduced a lot of strategic depth by allowing players to adapt based on known enemy starting locations, while also providing anti-snowball mechanics for the disadvantaged player. Many of these ideas still influence map design today.

Guillotine
+ Show Spoiler +

Surprisingly, before this map, there were no truly good ground-based maps for Protoss. The history of StarCraft pro scene balance is essentially the history of keeping Protoss viable, and this map played a big role in that. It helped move the meta away from relying on island maps just to keep Protoss competitive.

Plasma
+ Show Spoiler +

Around 2008–2009, I feel like the pro scene started resisting new meta shifts to maintain the status quo. Despite this, some map makers kept pushing creative concepts, and I really respect that. Plasma represents the persistence and passion of those designers.

Katrina
+ Show Spoiler +

I personally liked this map because I had a high win rate on it (lol). Over time, map paths have become increasingly simplified, with large ramps compensating for the lack of complexity. Katrina was one of the last maps before this trend fully took over, making it feel like the last spark of an era.

What are your top 3 favourite maps made by you and can you explain why you chose them?

815, Hitchhiker, Paranoid Android, Monty Hall

815
+ Show Spoiler +

This was the first map where I could truly design things exactly how I wanted. Seeing it enter the pro league, watching players struggle, and then witnessing the meta completely flip—from “Protoss can’t beat Terran on this map” to a starting expo strategy that changed everything—was an absolutely thrilling experience. Over time, 815 showcased how map-driven meta shifts can shape StarCraft in the most dramatic ways.

Hitchhiker
+ Show Spoiler +

This map encapsulates everything I learned over the years as a mapmaker. I asked myself: What makes a non-standard map work? How do you reinforce a central concept (the narrow canyon) while maintaining balance? I think all those design philosophies blended together well, and the resulting gameplay reflected that.

Paranoid Android
+ Show Spoiler +

I wanted to create something that felt like a "mini StarCraft" experience, similar to how ARAM in LoL condenses League into a single-lane brawl. I think it achieved that feeling somehow. Later, when I saw Scrap Station in SC2, I felt like it was almost a direct copy of this map—just without credit, which was a bit disappointing.

Monty Hall
+ Show Spoiler +

Since I double-majored in mathematics, this map was extra special to me because the name and concept aligned so well. On top of that, the gameplay was dynamic and forced players to find unique solutions, leading to constant adaptation across all three races. That made
it a very satisfying design for me.

Can you name three progamer matchups on three of your maps that you really love to watch?

Stork vs NaDa @ 815

Nal_rA vs GoRush @ Forte

Silver vs Shine @ Monty Hall

Who are your favourite pro-gamers of all time and why?

Nal_rA – Typically, the greatest players are the ones who can execute strategies that others only conceptualize in their heads—and they gain popularity because of their skill. But Nal_rA went beyond that. He regularly pulled off plays that no one had even thought of, yet still managed to build a meaningful career at the highest level. That level of creativity and execution is what makes him my favorite.

When you made different maps, did you have the same overall goal or specific goals in mind?

Not at all. Usually, when we had map selection meetings, each mapmaker would bring a long list of candidates. In the case of OSL, broadcasters and production staff would evaluate and discuss them, while in Proleague, the team coaches were involved in the selection process. I was the type to bring the most candidates to the table.

The process worked like this:

Some maps would be carryovers from the previous season.

Some would be standard maps designed for stability.

Some would be experimental maps that introduced fresh concepts.

The final map pool would be a combination of these categories, and I would tailor my approach based on what was needed.

However, one thing remained consistent across all my maps: I always wanted to define one clear, non-negotiable concept and ensure that every other design element served to reinforce it.

If a map had no concept, it wouldn’t be interesting or contribute to the scene.

If a map had multiple competing concepts, it could confuse both players and viewers.

So for me, clarity and singularity of concept were always key design principles.

What was your goal when you made Valley of Wind (with Rose.of.Dream) in 2004? By that, I mean could you tell us what you were trying to achieve by designing your map in the ways that you did? Please feel free to add any other details or opinions about this map.

Valley of Wind
+ Show Spoiler +

After Paradox, I started to believe that island maps had a lot more creative potential than people originally thought. At the time, I had no intention of contributing to professional leagues—I was just experimenting. But then, OGN announced a map-making contest, and I decided to open the map editor for the first time. Valley of Wind (originally named Dual Space) was one of the two maps I submitted.

My idea was to create a map where players weren’t connected by land, yet could still directly impact each other’s bases in interesting ways. I thought that would be a fun and unique concept, so I built the map around that idea. Rose.of.Dream, who was organizing the contest, really liked the concept and also appreciated my perspective on Brood War map design.

Since this was literally my first time using the map editor, the initial version was extremely rough—basically just a sketch-level map. Thankfully, RoD took the idea and refined it into something that could actually be used in the pro scene.

However, while the concept was strong, the balance adjustments were lacking, which ultimately led to the map being removed after only a few games. That was a bit disappointing.

Later, I actually reworked the map for teamplay and submitted it again. I thought it would have been really fun, but back then, UMS mode couldn't assign random starting positions properly, which made it unusable. That was another missed opportunity! (Instagram link)

Did you enjoy collaborating with another map maker on a map?

I don’t think I ever truly collaborated extensively with another mapmaker on a single map. While Pioneer Period was officially credited as a collaborative effort by OMAT members, it was more of a mix between Valkyrie candidate maps and the ones I submitted, rather than an actual joint development process.

What was enjoyable about collaborating with another map maker?

The most engaging part of working with other mapmakers was discussing and refining concepts. We often had lively discussions about ideas before the actual map-making process began.

What was challenging about collaborating with another map maker?

The map-making workflow at the time made deep collaboration difficult. The process typically followed this sequence:

1. Concept development
2. Sketching the layout
3. Refining details
4. Testing and balancing

While the concept stage was collaborative, the rest of the process was highly individual. Once a map's direction was set, there weren’t many opportunities for true co-working, which made deeper collaboration unnecessary.

What was your goal when you made Forte in 2005?

Forte
+ Show Spoiler +

Forte was the first map I created after officially joining OMAT (OGN’s map-making team) in 2005. While Valley of Wind was technically my first selected map, Forte was the first one that saw meaningful professional play.

At the time, OGN's map philosophy leaned more towards strategic, small-unit engagements rather than large-scale macro battles in wide-open centers. Keeping that in mind, my goal was to encourage early skirmishes and strategic decision-making, while also ensuring that the early game wasn’t just dead time.

To achieve this, I designed the main base to be relatively small, forcing players to actively find a way to move down and expand, which naturally led to early confrontations and dynamic gameplay.

As for the name Forte, there wasn’t really any deep meaning behind it—I just realized there hadn’t been an Italian-named map yet at the time, so I thought it would be interesting to use one!

What was your goal when you made 815 in 2005? And according to the liquipedia page of this map, it was the "first map to introduce small ramps where only small units can pass through." Do you have any comments about this?

When SCMDraft was introduced, it allowed us to use previously impossible terrain features that the default Campaign Editor couldn’t support. Initially, people experimented with things like wider, longer bridges, and larger ramps. I took the opposite approach and thought: What if we had a ramp that only small units could pass through?

To make this unique feature stand out, I decided to narrow the main base entrance, creating a sort of "half-island effect". This idea was a continuation of my earlier exploration of island map mechanics, which started with Valley of Wind.

At the time, meta gameplay was heavily influenced by ground-based connectivity, making most maps play out in predictable ways. OGN’s philosophy was always to introduce something fresh each season through map design. Because of that, concept-driven maps like 815 were well-received during the decision-making process.

What was your goal when you made Hitchhiker in 2006? And Hitchhiker seems like one of the most unique, interesting and experimental maps ever made, and nothing similar like it exists. Do you think it was a balanced map many years ago when it was played on and would you like to see this map in the ASL or ladder map pool today?

Hitchhiker
+ Show Spoiler +

At the time, professional leagues typically used four maps per season. The breakdown usually looked like this (though not always):

1. Two standard macro maps where execution of the current meta determined the winner.

2. One two-player map, where early-game strategy was a major factor.

3. One highly conceptual map, where success depended on how well players adapted to its unique design.

Hitchhiker was created with that third category in mind—maps that didn’t follow the dominant meta. To break away from meta-driven gameplay, I had to invalidate one of its core assumptions. In Hitchhiker’s case, that assumption was the large open center.

Normally, shrinking the center slightly makes Terran stronger since they can control space more easily. However, I theorized that if I reduced it drastically, then no player—Terran or otherwise—could advance easily without major risk.

One of my biggest concerns was whether Protoss could delay a Terran push long enough to tech into Carriers. Through optimized build testing, I found that it was possible, and the actual pro matches on this map delivered some really entertaining games, which I was very happy with.

Unfortunately, one of OGN's key decision-makers didn't like the map, so it was removed after just one season. That was disappointing. However, years later, seeing Hitchhiker played again in ASL and on ladder was a huge personal victory for me!

Out of curiosity, why did you name this map Hitchhiker? It is a fantastic name. What was your process like for naming your maps? Did you have a system or rule to come up with names for your maps?

Hitchhiker was named after the book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (HGTTG), which I was reading at the time. The name came to me when I imagined a Dragoon harassing a Terran 3-Tank timing push from above the cliffs—as if it were hitchhiking along the ridge!

As for my general map-naming process, I usually followed one of three approaches:

1. Naming maps after works I liked (music, books, games, etc.)

Paranoid Android →Named after the Radiohead song.

Hitchhiker →From HGTTG.

Persona →Inspired by the Atlus game series.

2. Using terms from my studies or profession Dual Space → A concept from linear algebra.

Python → Named after the programming language I was using at work.

Monty Hall → A famous mathematical problem.

Hannibal (originally Ubuntu) → Initially inspired by the Ubuntu operating system, and the Ubuntu logo is even visible in the map’s center!

3. Paying homage to classic games

1945 (originally 815)→Inspired by the classic arcade shooter 1945. (Fun fact: My wedding anniversary later turned out to be August 15 (8/15), which was an unbelievable coincidence!)

Arkanoid, Othello → References to classic games.

So, while there wasn’t a strict rule, I generally named maps based on things I personally enjoyed or found meaningful!

What was your goal when you made Paranoid Android in 2005 for the World Cyber Games (WCG)?

Paranoid Android
+ Show Spoiler +

If I remember correctly, Rose.of.Dream (RoD) was initially commissioned to design the WCG maps. The idea was to have a symbolic blend of maps from both OSL (RoD) and MSL (Cygnus)—each contributing two maps.

However, due to scheduling conflicts, Cygnus could only submit one map, and at the last minute, I was asked to create the fourth map.

As I mentioned before, Paranoid Android was inspired by the idea of a mini-StarCraft experience, similar to how ARAM in League of Legends condenses the game into a smaller, faster-paced format.

To achieve this:

The map size was deliberately small.

It was designed to favor small-unit skirmishes and fast drop play.

I was happy that the concept worked as intended! I also believe Blizzard carried this idea forward into StarCraft II, particularly with the Scrap Station map from Wings of Liberty. Watching early SC2 games on Scrap Station, I saw similar dynamics unfold, which was really interesting!

Were you pleased by the games that you saw played on this map in WCG 2005, WCG 2006 and WCG 2007?

When watching WCG, I wasn’t just looking at how the map played out, but also hoping for exciting storylines—especially upsets where foreign players beat Koreans.

What sort of games do you need to see on your maps in order for you to be pleased about your creation? In other words, what do you look for in games on your maps in determining the value of your maps?

One memorable match on Paranoid Android was when Silent_Control lost to a Brazilian player in WCG. That moment really stuck with me. (Youtube video)

Overall, I think the map delivered interesting games, with many fast-paced and unpredictable moments, which is exactly what I had envisioned.

As a mapmaker, I always have two conflicting desires when watching my maps in action:

1. I want to see the gameplay unfold as I originally envisioned.

2. But at the same time, I hope that players will interpret and adapt to the map in ways I never expected.

If the meta evolves beyond my initial design, it proves that the map has depth and encourages creative play, which makes me happiest.

So, the best-case scenario is a map that remains strategically relevant while also inspiring new approaches and adaptations over time.

What was your goal when you made Arkanoid in 2006?

Arkanoid
+ Show Spoiler +

Arkanoid was the result of pushing the neutral-building concept—which had already been introduced in Pioneer Period—to its absolute extreme.

At the same time, it was part of my ongoing exploration of island map mechanics, following my previous work on Valley of Wind, 815, and later Monty Hall.

Are you following ASL 14 right now? If so, what do you think about Arkanoid being in the map pool?

Unfortunately, I haven’t been following ASL 14 closely. However, I’ve always believed that some concept maps can remain relevant regardless of era. Just like Hitchhiker, Arkanoid is one of those maps that can work for at least one season no matter the meta. I think 910 (who oversees ASL map selection) made a great decision including it!

Do you think it is a balanced map if that question even makes sense to ask?

The real question isn’t whether Arkanoid is balanced, but rather how we define balance for a map like this. Unlike standard ground maps, a zero-base state exists at the beginning—meaning that build orders, strategies, and optimal paths are entirely unresearched.

Over time:

1. One race finds an optimized strategy.
2. The other two races develop counterplay.
3. The meta keeps evolving as responses are discovered.
4. This is exactly how balance naturally shifts—even without any patches or map updates.

A great example is LoL Worlds, where the meta can shift dramatically within a single tournament—even though no game patches happen mid-event. Players constantly refine strategies, making something OP one week and irrelevant the next. The same applies to StarCraft maps like Arkanoid.

Now, if one race ultimately fails to find an answer, then yes, the map may end up being imbalanced. But we must first ask:Did players simply lack the time to find the solution?
Or is there an actual structural issue with the map itself?

This is what makes concept maps so fascinating, and why balance discussions around them are often more complex and nuanced.

Fun fact: I once tried to create a teamplay version of Arkanoid called "Arkanoid Blue". You may find it on Earthattack’s IG. Unfortunately, the league decision-makers went with The Hunters instead.

What was your goal when you made Persona in 2007 for EVER2007 OSL?
And why did you want to use neutral Dark Swarms (17 of them) over various areas of the map?

Persona
+ Show Spoiler +

After neutral Psionic Storm and neutral Dark Swarm were discovered, I explored different ways to incorporate them into map design. However, I struggled to come up with an idea that would actually work well in a competitive setting.

I always believed that mapmakers should maintain professional distance from progamers, so I deliberately avoided forming close relationships with them. However, the one exception was CranK—we had known each other since his amateur days, and he was the only pro I was personally close with.

By 2007, almost every map assumed that players would take their natural expansion, which had become the default meta. So, to shake things up, I realized that I had to introduce a major variable at the natural to disrupt this assumption.

One of the ideas CranK suggested seemed viable, so I decided to use it as the basis for Persona’s design.

I believe Persona’s first televised match was unlucky. It was a TvT, and both players had defensive playstyles, resulting in a 1.5-hour-long game. This immediately gave the map a bad reputation as "boring" and overly slow-paced.

Ironically, at the time, OGN was being criticized for maps that led to games ending too quickly, so Persona was actually an attempt to introduce a more strategic, drawn-out gameplay style.

Whenever a new map was introduced, I would write a detailed strategic guide and post it in the community. I didn’t expect to design strategies for the players, but I at least wanted to provide them with key ideas and potential directions to explore. My goal was to help both players and viewers adapt more easily to new map concepts.

The problem? Pro gamers never read these guides. At the time, Proleague was the main focus for all teams, and maps that were used only in OSL or MSL often saw very little practice and preparation. It was clear that players were unprepared for Persona.

Protoss, in particular, struggled on this map because they never figured out how to counter early-game Zerg strategies—until the finals, when Stork finally discovered the counterplay.

Ironically, the exact counter Stork used in the finals was nearly identical to what I had written in my original guide when the map was first released.

This was probably the moment when I started feeling the biggest sense of disillusionment about designing maps for professional leagues. It was frustrating to put effort into creating innovative maps only for players to ignore key strategic elements and then blame the map when they lost.

Your maps all seem very unique, experimental and fun. Reminds me of many of Earthattack's maps. Did you always like to be creative and make more experimental maps?
And do you think experimental maps are more or less welcomed these days by progamers or other gamers?

While all of us in the mapmaking scene were colleagues, we were also competitors. There were many other mapmakers who could create solid, standard maps with a high level of polish, so I decided to approach map design from an engineering perspective instead.

This mindset naturally led me to create more unique and experimental maps, because I was always thinking about how game mechanics could bechallenged or expanded through map design.

One of my biggest regrets is that experimental maps were not always welcomed—especially at the time. Many pro players disliked concept maps because they had to grind 100+games a day refining execution for the dominant meta. Experimental maps forced them to adapt and innovate, which wasn’t always something they wanted to deal with.

However, I believed that if every pro league was just a contest of who could execute the standard meta the most efficiently, it would ultimately become boring and unsustainable.

To me, professional leagues should always have an element of entertainment. Experimental maps bring unpredictability, innovation, and excitement, which are all critical for keeping both players and audiences engaged long-term.

It seems you kept switching tile sets with each new map that you made (e.g., Valley of Wind =Jungle, Forte =Space, Hitchhiker =Ice, Paranoid Android =Twilight, Arkanoid =Desert, Persona =Badlands).

Did you want to create and introduce into professional StarCraft a different looking map each time? If so, do you think it is important to have a lot of different tile sets in a map pool? Do you think it is bad to have many Jungle or Space maps in a map pool even if those maps seem to be favoured for easier visibility/creation purposes?

I always believed that professional StarCraft should be entertaining, and if every game was played on Jungle or Space tile sets, it would feel repetitive and visually dull.

However, some tile sets have technical limitations that make them harder to work with:

Ice and Ash World are particularly difficult because they have some properties impact gameplay, which is why they are often avoided.

I think it's unfortunate that these tile sets weren't more refined in the game engine, because if Blizzard had improved tile set usability, we could have seen even more visually distinct maps in professional play.

What was your goal when you made Hannibal which was played in the 2008 Shinhan Bank Proleague?

The liquipedia page of this map states that it was "designed for 2v2 play." Is that true? And if so, why did you want to design a map for 2v2? Did you play 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 much yourself?

Hannibal
+ Show Spoiler +

One of the biggest freedoms of teamplay maps is that balance doesn’t need to be as strictly controlled as in 1v1 maps. This allowed me, as a mapmaker, to experiment more aggressively with different ideas.

However, the downside was that pro teams had specific players specializing in 2v2, and their careers depended on teamplay maps staying in the pool. When teamplay maps were removed, it negatively impacted those players' opportunities, which is why 2v2 eventually disappeared from the professional scene. Hannibal ended up being one of the last major 2v2 maps.

Anyway, there are always elements from past maps that I find interesting and want to revisit, but sometimes they aren’t viable in traditional 1v1 competitive play. So, with Hannibal, I took inspiration from:

Fastest Maps (known for economic explosiveness)
Forte (a previous map I made)
Jim Raynor's Memory (MSL map)

The original name for Hannibal was actually "Ubuntu". I felt that the concept of teamplay aligned well with the meaning of "Ubuntu" (a philosophy about community and interconnectedness). That’s why the Ubuntu logo is embedded in the center of the map!

What was your goal when you made Othello in 2008? And the liquipedia page states the map favours Terran in TvZ and favours Zerg in ZvP. Do you agree with that?

Othello
+ Show Spoiler +

Othello was the last official map I made. One of my long-standing design interests was the role of high ground behind the natural expansion.

On maps like Lost Temple, the natural cliff completely blocks ground access, which made it a broken and unsustainable design for modern play. However, I still believed that having some kind of high ground presence behind the natural could create interesting strategic depth.

That idea led to Othello’s high ground positioning, where I wanted to give players room for tactical play while avoiding the extreme imbalance of a Lost Temple-style cliff abuse situation.

One of my biggest regrets with Othello was how I designed the center and the second/third expansions. My original plan was to have multiple smaller paths, making the map feel fluid and dynamic, encouraging speed-based backdoor tactics.

However, by 2008, the meta had already evolved to a point where players naturally secured their second expansion early, leading to longer, more structured games. As a result:

The multi-path setup didn’t work as intended.

Instead of creating a dynamic flow, the narrow paths reinforced matchup-based advantages.

Terran had a strong hold in TvZ, while Zerg benefited more in ZvP due to the nature of engagements.

Seeing how Othello played out, I realized I could no longer keep up with StarCraft's meta while working full-time. A lot of other life factors came into play as well, and I eventually decided to step away from mapmaking.

You informed me that you also used another (anonymous) nickname for making maps -Terrance. Could I ask why you chose to create and use an anonymous nickname?

Why did you choose the name Terrance? Did others know that Forgotten_ was Terrance back then or even now?

At the time, there was an ongoing conflict between KeSPA and OGN over broadcasting rights for Proleague.

KeSPA believed that, since Proleague was run by a coalition of teams, it should have full control over production and broadcasting.

OGN, on the other hand, argued that it had built the Proleague brand from the ground up and should not be excluded from the decision-making process.

During this period, I was a member of OMAT (OGN's map-making team), but I was not under an exclusive contract with OGN. When KeSPA decided to create its own independent league, it rushed to find a mapmaker—and Valkyrie, who was also working as a KeSPA staff member, was assigned to lead map development.

However, we felt pressured about our existing relationship with OGN, and Valkyrie’s map-making style did not lend itself to quickly mass-producing maps.

As a result, I stepped in under the anonymous nickname "Terrance" and quickly submitted four maps for KeSPA : Python, Monty Hall, Nemesis (팔진도), Chariots of Fire.

The decision to remain anonymous was also influenced by wider concerns about how OMAT members were being treated and respected within OGN at the time. While I won’t go into full detail, the situation was complex, and staying anonymous felt like the safest choice.

Ironically, the most successful and widely played map I ever made was Python, which I submitted anonymously as Terrance. Even my wife was surprised when she found out that I was the creator of Python!

The name Terrance came from the South Park characters Terrance & Phillip. Like Forgotten_, it didn’t have a deeper meaning—I just picked it randomly.

However, much later, I realized something funny: when Koreans pronounce "Terrance" in a Konglish-style accent, it sounds like "테란쎄" (Terran is OP).

You made Chariots of Fire under your anonymous nickname Terrance in 2007. What was your goal in making this map?

And the liquipedia page of this map claims it "mainly favors Terran". Do you agree with this?

Chariots of Fire
+ Show Spoiler +

Chariots of Fire was specifically designed for 2v2 team play. At the time, 2v2 meta was becoming stagnant, with most games being dominated by Zergling-Zealot micro wars in the early game.

Many past teamplay maps attempted to solve this issue by, blocking early rush paths with minerals to force strategic movement, and ensuring that two-colored rushes weren’t too overwhelming.

My approach for Chariots of Fire was: If teammates spawned close together, the game would focus on fighting for the high ground in the center.

If teammates spawned far apart, it would lead to more chaotic, multi-directional fights with backdoor pressure.

When designing 2v2 maps, Zerg almost always dominates due to the superior economic efficiency of Zergling and Mutalisk play. Protoss usually comes next, since Zealots provide early stability, while Dragoon-Templar tech paths remain viable in mid-to-late game fights.

Terran, on the other hand, is often considered the weakest race in 2v2 team games, as it requires more time to establish itself. I wouldn’t recommend playing a straight-up 1v1 on this map unless you enjoy suffering.

You made Monty Hall under your anonymous nickname Terrance in 2007. What was your goal in making this map?

When KeSPA took direct control of official map creation, they suddenly needed four 1v1 maps and two 2v2 maps on a very tight schedule. Since Valkyrie took longer to make maps, he could only produce one 1v1 map and one 2v2 map. I ended up making three 1v1 maps (Python, Monty Hall, Nemesis) and one 2v2 map.

I felt that, within these maps, I had room for one highly experimental design. Monty Hall was an extension of the ideas I introduced in Hitchhiker:

Hitchhiker had three entrances (one blocked by a neutral building), which created three separate battle zones.

I was also frustrated that Hitchhiker was removed too quickly, so I wanted to explore a similar concept again, hoping it would see longer use.

Were you satisfied by the professional games that you saw played on your map?

I was very satisfied with how Monty Hall played out. The map encouraged the type of strategic play I was hoping for, and it remained in use for a respectable period of time. All three races had viable strategies, and while certain matchups had strengths and weaknesses, no race felt completely unplayable on the map.

I also think the name fit perfectly—both in theme (the Monty Hall Problem) and in how players had to make calculated choices about which paths to take.

Would you like to see this map played today in ASL or the ladder map pool? Is there anything in Monty Hall that you would want to change or update?

I heard that Monty Hall was recently used in ladder and SSL, but I haven’t had the chance to watch the games. Since it’s a conceptually clean map with clear strategic choices, I think it would still produce interesting and unique games today.

You made Nemesis under your anonymous nickname Terrance in 2007. What was your goal in making this map?

Nemesis
+ Show Spoiler +

By 2007, TvZ balance had started shifting more heavily in favor of Terran. Zerg could no longer effectively compete on maps forcing Zerg into a three-Hatchery opening were becoming less viable in professional play.

Around this time, most maps placed the natural expansion just outside the main. My idea for Nemesis was to experiment with a hybrid approach:

Provide a "safe" backyard expansion.

Allow Zerg to defend with just a single Creep Colony, rather than requiring a full defense setup at the front.

Accelerate the transition to mid-game since everyone would have two bases early on.

Interestingly, Katrina also followed a similar philosophy. It made me wonder whether offering a highly stable back expansion was becoming a standard feature in Protoss-favored maps at the time. Of course, the current meta might play differently now.

Honestly, Nemesis was a pretty "safe" and unremarkable map—it didn’t have any particularly groundbreaking features compared to my other maps. I don’t recall any majorly iconic games, except for the Chalrenge vs. Rock draw.

Were you happy with the 2007 Shinhan Bank Proleague games that happened on this map?

I watched it live, and it was absolutely bizarre to see. That match also taught me a valuable PvP survival lesson for Battle.net—a trick I ended up using myself!

Last but certainly not least, you made one of the most popular maps in Starcraft history under your anonymous nickname Terrance in 2007. This map is still widely played, especially in the 2v2 foreign community. What was your goal behind the creation of Python?

Python
+ Show Spoiler +

I was inspired by an amateur map called Gladiator by Ashelen (a completely different map from Str18-02’s work, and unfortunately I lost all the old materials so I don’t have any screenshots of it). Gladiator used the Jungle tileset, and its starting positions were a mirrored version of Python’s. Using that map as a motif, I planned a standard, diagonally symmetric map, which eventually evolved into Python. Although many have compared its starting positions to Lost Temple (since it also uses the Jungle tileset), when I created Python I wasn’t consciously thinking about Lost Temple.

At that time, the requirement was to create one map for 3–4 players—a standard map with an extremely wide center. My goal was to make a very conventional map that, while featuring a slightly shorter rush distance and closer air distances to encourage a more dynamic early game, would also lead to a refreshing late game through the expansive center—the widest among the maps produced up to that point.

One notable aspect is the presence of an island multi. For a while, on official maps, the island multi in standard 4-player maps often functioned as little more than a placeholder (think of Nemesis!). This was because, in most cases, due to the ground-focused nature of play, expansions on the other starting point were more convenient and powerful.

However, I hoped that the island multi would carry more strategic meaning. I wanted games where, even if a player lost control of the center, they could build up strength and attempt a comeback through the island multi attached to their main base. I believe this functional difference from the island multi in Lost Temple is notable—and ultimately, because of this island multi, many people ended up thinking of Lost Temple. I sometimes wonder if it might have been different had I used a different tileset.

Were you satisfied with the professional games that you saw being played on Python back then (e.g., 2007 Shinhan Bank Proleague, 2007 GOMTV MSL, 2007 Daum OSL, etc.) and even more recently (e.g., 2017 KCM Race Surival, 2016 KCM Legends Match, etc.)?

Python hosted an enormous number of games, and many of them were very good. I particularly remember matches like Flash vs. Boxer and Firebathero vs. Savior. However, if Python were used in the league today, I suspect that in the pro scene there might be a noticeable advantage for Terran in TvZ. But adding elements to buff Zerg could make life very difficult for Protoss.

What is your general impression of this map, when you compare it to all of your other maps? Does it stand out a lot for you because of its notoriety or do you feel more attached to some of your other maps?

If you’ve followed this interview, you probably sensed that I tend to prefer and create maps that stay true to their concept. I wasn’t particularly emotionally attached to Python when making it. However, considering that my journey into mapmaking began because “playing Protoss on Lost Temple was just too painful,”I’m ultimately satisfied that Python ended up serving as a substitute for Lost Temple.

Did you like making 2 player, 3 player or 4 player maps more and why?

At first, I enjoyed 2-player maps because they offered a lot of strategic choices. However, over time, I came to prefer 4-player maps. I loved the idea that a single map could implement up to three different gameplay dynamics.

I wasn’t as skilled at designing 3-player maps (I had many candidate maps that never got picked), so I didn’t really enjoy them as much.

Which tile sets did you really like to use and why?

I think every tileset has its pros and cons, but if I had to pick one, I’d say I really like Space. There's a meme in Korea that engineers love straight lines and symmetry—and I definitely fit that stereotype.

Which tile sets did you rarely or never like to use and why?

I wouldn’t say I hated any of them, but I found Desert to be a bit tricky. The default ramp is too wide, which makes it somewhat challenging to handle, and the minimap is too bright, making the overall gaming environment less appealing compared to other tilesets.

When you made a new map, what things did you think about or take into consideration?
When I was designing a new map, my primary focus was always on whether it could introduce a new meta. Unless I deliberately decided to make a map like Python—where the goal was to stick with the status quo—I always aimed to push players into uncharted strategic territory.

To put it in perspective, consider League of Legends: even mid-season, when champions get buffed or nerfed, there's a period of chaos. Some champions seem strong for a moment only to vanish from the meta shortly after, while others are discovered a bit later. Even before LoL existed, I believed that StarCraft could experience similar cycles of strategic evolution.

What do you think is the ultimate goal of a map maker in making a map? For example, do you think a map should be balanced as much as possible or do you think a map can give more advantage to one race?

I believe a map should at least guarantee a minimum level of balance by providing each race with mechanisms that allow them to interpret and work through the map. However, trying to predict and adapt to meta shifts over a three-month season is extremely difficult.

Do you think the goals of map makers have remained the same or changed throughout the years? Has mapping become harder and more complex?

Because of the unpredictable nature of meta shifts, I’ve come to think that sacrificing a map’s entertainment value for the sake of balance isn’t very beneficial. After all, giving up that entertainment doesn’t enable you to perfectly predict the meta and achieve a “golden” balance.

Now that the SC1 pro scene has disappeared, I sometimes wonder if strictly concept-driven maps still hold the same meaning. Viewers of SC1 tend to want to experience a refreshed version of the classic game they once enjoyed, rather than entirely new elements.

Do you think a map pool must contain all balanced maps, or do you think a map pool can contain maps that favour different races depending on which race is dominating professional Starcraft at a point in time?

I believe there's no such thing as a perfectly “balanced map.” Instead, what matters is that the maps are balanced in a way that fits the meta of their time. For example, imagine using Rush Hour 3 today. Back then, PvZ games saw Protoss somehow managing to hold out, but now there’d be no effective way to counter Hydralisks. In a meta where one race is too strong, the maps naturally tend to adjust to counter that dominance—nobody wants a situation where, say, seven out of eight players come from one race in a major tournament quarterfinal.

How did you feel about maps being made that disadvantaged Terran, for example, just because FlaSh was dominating?

I don’t recall there ever being an era where Terran was consistently weak overall since 2001. Part of that is because the design of Terran inherently limits the kinds of experiments map makers can try. Personally, if I were given patch authority for just one thing, I’d reduce the siege mode range of Siege Tanks by about 1~2 and slightly buff their production time or cost. The presence of Siege Tanks really restricts how map makers can utilize space.

How did you decide if you wanted to create a more standard or experimental map?

I always brought a huge variety of maps to our meetings—including both standard and experimental designs. In practice, the standard maps were usually developed by other team members who could invest more time and refine them to a higher level of polish. As a result, the experimental maps ended up being the ones primarily used in the league.

Which map did you spend the least amount of time developing and why?

Generally, it didn’t take me very long. For example, Python started as a rough 10-minute sketch on a notebook after a night of partying with friends. That early scribble eventually evolved into the official map. I’d usually spend some time brainstorming or mulling over map concepts while I was atschool or working part-time, so the initial idea was often already formed before I even opened SCMDraft.

Which map did you spend the most time on developing and why?

Excluding the Valley of Wind contest entry, Hitchhiker was probably the one I agonized over the most in terms of concept. Even so, my first sketch for Hitchhiker didn’t take more than an hour. The extra time came later in the polishing phase, once the map was selected as a candidate.

How long did you typically spend on developing one map? Did you have a method or routine which you can share with us?

After sketching, I would launch SCMDraft and lay out the terrain. Since candidate maps were generally judged more on overall concept than on detailed polish, I didn’t invest too much time until a map was officially selected. Once a map was chosen, I’d spend about a week refining details, debugging, and adjusting mining rates.

How can you tell if your map or another map was or is balanced enough? How important to you were player comments about your map? I am asking about your experiences of watching players test your maps or provide you with feedback about your maps.

It may sound extreme, but I don’t believe there’s an absolute number or metric for map balance. Sure, you could look at the aggregated win–loss records among pros as one metric, but that doesn’t hold absolute meaning. Even the same map can feel different depending on the meta, the time period, and whether you’re facing a top-tier player like Flash, an average pro, a semi-pro, or an amateur.

Since it’s impossible to perfectly balance everything, everyone ends up evaluating a map’s balance based on how they experience it in actual play—or based on the opinions of pros and a few loud voices. In that process, there’s often some very clever propaganda or even manipulation at work.

Because of these factors, during my active days I actually felt that we should leave room for players to overcome issues through strategy. Half the time, even pro gamers wouldn’t devise those strategies; they’d just play their usual game and, if things didn’t work out, they’d simply judge the map as “imba.”(Just think back to those early PvT games on 815 when Kingdom declared, “I am the last victory for Protoss!”)

In worse cases, during testing, some players would even intentionally lose matches to avoid maps that were unfavorable to their main race. I remember one legendary player, for instance, complaining that he “had nothing to do, so I’m throwing a center 2-gate”, while not building a pylon at the right moment—whether by mistake or on purpose.

That’s why I ultimately felt that it was wrong for the league members (like team coaches) to have the final adjustment on map balance during testing. It was like leaving the fine-tuning of MMO patch numbers to a few users—nonsense, really. Of course, one might argue that the immediate balance of a map affects their careers, so it might just be a difference in perspective. In any case, I eventually became so tired of this separation of decision-making power and responsibility that it played a major role in my decision to retire.

What part of a map do you feel is very important?

A map used in professional gaming needs to provide entertainment. It must have features that keep casual viewers engaged while also ensuring that players don't feel the map is unfair. That balance is both crucial and challenging.

What is the most difficult part of map making in your opinion?

The hardest part is that when you create a tournament map, the feedback isn’t as direct as it is for consumer products. Instead, you rely on indirect evaluation through player performance and viewer reception during matches. That indirect feedback loop makes tuning a map for competitive play especially tough.

Do you have any advice for new map makers who wish to create a unique, interesting or popular map loved by many players like you have done many times?

One effective approach, as seen in ASL, is to maintain a diverse map pool and allow players to ban/pick maps. It's a shame that during my active days, that system wasn’t in place.

Is there anything you wish the map software (scmdraft2) could do back then?

Back then, adjusting resource collection rates was such a huge stress—mostly because of issues with the workers' pathfinding algorithm—that I wished we could hack into the map data to expose the pathfinding API.

Ironically, that feature eventually showed up long after I retired. Aside from that, it wasn’t so much the map software I wanted, but rather StarCraft itself to have:

1.Walls that even air units couldn’t pass through, and

2.Portals that let units teleport.

If those were implemented in melee games, I believe it would unlock a ton of new possibilities.

Do you have any opinions about ASL map pools?

I don’t check them often, but 910 and EarthAttack have been doing such a great job that I always keep an eye on the map list with interest.

Do you have any opinions about the ladder map pool?

I’m not very familiar with the current state of the ladder map pool, so it’s hard to say. However, I think that when using older maps as ladder maps, it would be great if they were remastered or at least somewhat updated. It’s not like it would take a lot of time or money!

[ox.tQ: Readers you may remember we did exactly this during New Worlds Map Contest III: Classics Remastered]

If I am not mistaken, you are no longer map making. Do you ever plan to make a return to map making or are you retired for good?

I’m essentially retired from map making for good. With my startup and raising two kids, I simply don’t have the time to get back into SC map making.

If you were to come back and make a map, what would you try to make?

If there were a major SC update that triggered a significant meta shift, I might be tempted to try again. But honestly, since Blizzard disbanded the SC team, it seems unlikely that opportunity will come around.

Do you think Starcraft is easier to learn, play and understand today or many years ago? Please explain your answer.

I definitely think SC has become easier to learn today. In the past, even checking out pro players' screens was a challenge, but now ex-pros stream their gameplay, share tips, and even offer personal coaching. That said, at its core, StarCraft is still an incredibly challenging game compared to modern titles, and the RTS genre as a whole has moved away from such difficult experiences. I believe Blizzard knows this too—that’s why SC2 includes less demanding content like co-op missions.

Do you play StarCraft at all today? What race was or is your favourite? What was or is your favourite matchup to play or watch and why?

Due to work, I no longer use a Windows PC, and playing SC on MacOS is challenging because the hotkeys are so different. I do get a bit excited when SC videos pop up on my YouTube feed, and I occasionally play at PC cafe with friends when we go out drinking, but overall, I don’t play much. When I do play casually, I usually go random, and if there’s a serious match with more than $20 in prize money, I pick Protoss.

Did you play StarCraft much back when you were actively creating maps for professional leagues?

I played StarCraft a lot back then. I even competed in a tournament match against my semi-pro friend CranK (who’s now very active as an SC2 streamer) and managed to secure 2 wins early in a best-of-five series. (When I mentioned it to him, he pretended not to remember at all—lol.)However, unlike someone like Polt who went to the same college with me, I didn’t completely give up on my studies or the path I wanted to take in software engineering, so my overall playtime was lower (I’d roughly estimate that I played fewer than 4,000 1v1 games in my entire life), and I wouldn’t say I had overwhelming talent either.

What would you say if someone called you one of the greatest map makers of all time?

I’d be extremely grateful. However, my goal as a map maker was to fundamentally change the landscape of the SC pro scene and extend the lifespan of the scene itself. Unfortunately, for various reasons, I wasn’t able to achieve that, which leaves me with a bit of regret.

What do you think your legacy as a professional map maker is or should be? What do you want to be most remembered for?

While I was the one who brought SCMDraft into the scene, I believe that change was inevitable regardless of who did it. However, I’m proud of having contributed significantly to the culture of “hacking”into StarCraft’s inner workings—for example, I was the first to measure each unit’s collision size, a key element that eventually became central to Troy—and integrating that into melee game designs.

Are you in touch with retired or active professional map makers today?

I catch up with them once or twice a year. There are about six of us—myself, Valkyrie, Rose.of.Dream, Str18-01, EarthAttack, and SC2 mapmaker Jacky. We usually meet up whenever someone gets married. Except for Jacky, the youngest, the rest of us are all married and busy with parenting, so we don’t see each other very often.

What do you think about the future of StarCraft in your home country? For example, do you see it continuing, growing or dying?

It seems that the situation has changed a lot compared to two years ago when I first got these questions. (Sorry, tQ!) Now, 20-something streamers who are just being introduced to SC are leading the amateur scene, while those who were active in the pro scene are now in their 30s. However, I don't think the SC scene can continue to serve as a platform for showcasing peak competitive performance.

On a side note, I actually find it interesting to imagine the SC scene evolving somewhat like WWE—not in terms of match-fixing, but in the sense that there are players and scenarios that only the top performers can deliver, which even viewers are aware of, yet still enjoy. And above all, unlike WWE, SC isn’t a "Don't try this at home" kind of thing!

Any last words for your fans out there, many of whom grew up playing StarCraft on your maps and watching exciting progames on them?

It’s truly amazing and romantic to see that so many people around the world still love and cherish this old game and all the stories connected to it. The time I spent playing StarCraft and making maps is a period in my life that I’ll never forget. I deeply thank everyone who, in any way, shared that incredible era with me!

[End of transcript]

Well, that wraps up our epic interview! A huge thank you to Forgotten_, aka Terrance, for taking the time to share such thoughtful and detailed responses—his recall of events from nearly 20 years ago is truly impressive. I hope you enjoyed his answers to my rather mediocre questions. Let's give him a warm round of applause, and please feel free to share any thoughts or comments you have about his lasting impact and legacy.

I want to thank 강구열 Disney for helping us to secure this wonderful interview.

I first reached out to Forgotten_ for this interview back in October 2022, and though his busy schedule meant we're only hearing from him now, he was incredibly enthusiastic about making time to connect and share his story with us. We are very grateful to him for this. Also, huge congratulations to Seungyun "Forgotten_" Choon on the recent arrival of his second child—we wish him and his growing family all the best!

Folks if you haven't done so already, please check out the first interview we did with LatiAs, as well as the second interview we did with Earthattack, the third interview with Waldstein and the fourth with skb9728_CyGnus.

[Interview] Forgotten_ - Legendary Mapmaker

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming