Hope you’re all enjoying asl20 so far. I’ve been thinking it might be fun to do an interview with the four mapmakers who made the current map pool. The games are still fresh in everyone’s heads, so I figure they’d have some cool thoughts to share about how things played out. One of them (Waldstein, who made Radeon, Litmus, and Roaring Currents) already said yes, so that’s locked in at least.
The interview will take place after ASL20 wraps up, so once all the games have been played on the maps. That way the mapmakers will have a bigger sample of games to reflect on and comment about.
I will have my own questions but I wanted to invite others to make suggestions if it's something they are passionate about. After all this interview is for the community and I’m happy for others to be involved. Since a lot of you follow ASL closely and notice all the little details in the games/meta, I wanted to open this up and see if you had any good questions I could bring to them.
In principle anything goes as long as it’s respectful and interesting. If it’s about a very specific game moment, a timestamped vod would help a ton so they know what you’re talking about. If I use your question I’ll credit you in the interview transcript, though I can’t promise every suggestion will make it in.
Just to clarify: the mapmakers won’t be reading this thread. I’ll vet and select questions, include them in my interview notes, and direct each one only to the mapmaker who worked on the relevant map.
If it’s something you’re interested in, feel free to make a note of a moment on a map or even an entire game on a map, past or future (within ASL20!), and then pose a question here for the mapmaker to potentially answer.
Just wanted to share this plan and see if the community wanted to pitch in.
did you foresee how often the island bases are typically feast-or-famine in pro games? the best (worst) example of this is zergs taking all three south island bases at once.
also any thoughts on Larva vs Bisu on this map and Larva’s long-term gameplan to fully utilize the map
Why??????????? Terrans can just build a mickey mouse wall if they only want one gap, and all the other modern maps like metro, polestar, knockout allow a 1-gap wall. Even Radeon allows the 1-gap wall on the top positions. So why are Terrans just randomly not allowed a 1-gap wall of a particular shape on certain positions on one map in particular?
Artosis mentioned the increased use of space map tiles. Any concern about losing variety?
How much scope is there for continued tinkering with artificial 3rd gasses as a way to help make all races competitive on new/unusual maps. Specifically thinking how it affects pvz.
Cool idea. Appreciate the map makers contribution to the game.
I would like to know if the defining feature of the Knockout map—the trench—will be used as a standard element in future maps. Do the creator(s) consider this feature a success, and what was the reasoning behind placing the third base on high ground? This seems to create a difficult “no man’s land” for Protoss players when trying to take a third base, making the trench a kind of double-edged sword in PvZ. Despite being intended as a buff, it feels like it can also work against Protoss.
Roaring Currents has created many really interesting maps. I’m curious whether the fundamental features—such as one connected landmass accessed via a medium-sized central bridge, where standard play focuses on roughly four bases from the beginning, and islands are available as optional expansions from the start but not required until later, along with long-distance attack routes, high ground, and smaller entrances—will become standard elements for future island maps. Could these maps be included alongside more traditional maps in competitive play?
(Since island maps are more or less one trick ponies , that dont stay long, normally)
Were the ASL Season 20 maps designed with the idea of being anti-Zerg? Did they play out that way, or were you surprised by how they actually turned out?
Alright folks, the final Tastosis VOD of the ASL finals is out! That means the season’s officially wrapped up once you get around to watching it. Hope everybody enjoyed another amazing season of Broodwar!
If you’ve got any questions about the maps or games (see the original post for details), drop them here. I’ll try to gather as many as possible and pass them on to the mapmakers. Fortunately, three out of four ASL20 mappers agreed to be interviewed (I'm still trying to track down the fourth, KM-, the author of Pole Star).
What are map makers thoughts on the Knock Out ditch, and do they think the concept succeeded/will be implemented into most future maps?
Based on data, 2p and 3p maps seem to be most balanced according to ELOBoard, yet we still see majority 4p maps in tournaments. Is this due to players, tournament organizers, or map makers preferring to see 4p maps created than 2p or 3p? I understand 3p maps are very difficult due to asymmetry but 2p maps I feel can be pushed harder in map creation.
Any plans on making semi-island maps in permanent rotations ? Those things are kinda great. We are seeing alot units being used and like development on meta
- In ASL we have seen some interesting maps (Roaring Currents, Plasma, Death Valley, Arkanoid, etc.) What innovative ideas would you bring to an ASL map if you could?
- What are your thoughs in revamping tiny maps to force micro over macro, such as Paranoid Android?
I have a question in the same vein as Spaniard but not on the map size but on the resources:
Would you consider a map with only maybe 8 bases total? it could even be a 4p map with main and natural for each and nothing else (or maybe a center base) to force a different, more aggressive style? 2p would work as well. Currently, even Litmus has a lot of bases. To compensate for that perhaps more mineral patches would be needed in the existing base.
First off huge thanks to map makers for all their hard work. Without them this game would be dead long ago.
What features do you consider necessary to ensure that a map is balanced in each match-up?
How important is it to you that a map is as balanced as possible, and how do you balance that vs making new interesting ideas?
When designing a map from scratch what is your process?
As far as I can tell, it's been a very long time since maps have experimented with different amounts of minerals per patch and gas per geyser. Do you think it's worth experimenting with again? What other map elements are you trying to experiment with or want to experiment with?
Maps like Litmus and Eclipse are really interesting 2-player maps because they have a sort of "asymmetrical symmetry" where the map is symmetrical but with an odd number of bases, and thus create pretty interesting games. Do you think this sort of design can be brought to 3 and 4 player maps?
Minstrel is my favorite map of the Afreeca era, I love how it still facilitates large macro games while encouraging very different strategies from standard maps. Not really a question I guess lol. Can we please get more amazing maps like Minstrel?!
On October 29 2025 06:59 WGT-Baal wrote: I have a question in the same vein as Spaniard but not on the map size but on the resources:
Would you consider a map with only maybe 8 bases total? it could even be a 4p map with main and natural for each and nothing else (or maybe a center base) to force a different, more aggressive style? 2p would work as well. Currently, even Litmus has a lot of bases. To compensate for that perhaps more mineral patches would be needed in the existing base.
Then you could call the game over when the Protoss takes a third successfully vs. the Zerg so the game will just be "can Protoss get out of the base" and since often the answer is yes the game will be very boring.
Do map makers think about making mineral locations easier to boost so that the battle.net ladder players don't need to mess with it too much? For example on Dominator top position you only need to boost 1 patch to be as effective as boosting multiple patches at the bottom location.
And it matters at a lot for the hatch/pool/Lair timing for Zerg. It matters doubly because if you delay Lair by a few seconds the free larva from Lair will be late, so you will have wasted some larva seconds in addition to delaying Spire
What feature would you wish you had that just isn't possible, that would open up the coolest opportunities to build new maps? (e.g. permanent psi-storm, scripting spawn positions in a certain way/logic, etc.)
Has there ever been a discussion to adjust unit stats to improve balance of the game?
How do you deal with the dominance of one race for a time period? Zerg had been dominating for the past 2 years, before it was Terran.
A standard structure for maps is established. Do you think we need new designs or bring back old map features, for example close air distance mains like Lost Temple or Python and high ground over expansions, to shake things up?
On October 29 2025 06:59 WGT-Baal wrote: I have a question in the same vein as Spaniard but not on the map size but on the resources:
Would you consider a map with only maybe 8 bases total? it could even be a 4p map with main and natural for each and nothing else (or maybe a center base) to force a different, more aggressive style? 2p would work as well. Currently, even Litmus has a lot of bases. To compensate for that perhaps more mineral patches would be needed in the existing base.
I love this idea, we can try it at least once. 10 bases in 5p map maybe very cool too!
I think 2 bridges like Destination map can counter the hydra burst.
I've played some games on Roaring Currents. It's one of the best maps I've known in ASLs. I appreciate your masterpiece!
My question: How do you feel about Neo Blaze in the 2000 Freechal OnGameNet Starleague?
I like the concept with narrow zigzag paths. It supports air units and favor micro, multitask players. On the other hand, it's anti hydra burst, 9 pool by Zerg. I hope we will see a new meta in the next ASL.
My questions are very similar to FlaShFTW's, anyway:
Hydra bust (threat) in ZvP before Storm is out generally makes for boring games. Do you think it's up to map makers to do something about it or is it up to the players? A ditch outside the natural seems like a great tool to weaken hydra busts. However, all other range attack busts/harass get weakened by it too. Are there other options to the ditch that don't result in encouraging Fast Expo builds? As encouraging Fast Expo builds can also encourage cheese and watching coin flip games is not a great experience either.
Considering all match ups, what do you think is the ideal 2-, 3-, 4-player map distribution for a Bo7? Why?
I like 1 base 2-gate opportunities on small, or vertical 4 player maps like metropolis and eclipse. I don't like highground expansion mineral patches accessible from the low ground like neo origin. The defensive side pathing is too long while the attacker pvz can turtle under the highground and keep spamming psistorms. I like time based game variations due to shorter air travel versus longer ground travel found on 76 and roaring currents. I think it makes a nice tech switch for air that doesn't feel cheesy. I also don't like radeon's bridge location that is too central. It can be abused by terrans laying siege tanks on one side of the platform. It disadvantages pvt in my opinion. Terrans have too much control, protoss has too little mobility for both defense of the expansion and the other side of the bridge. The side length of the platform next to 10' o'clock is too long, the unbuildable terrain surrounding the corners needs to be shortened in my opinion, it looks like tower defence.
Nice wall of text but where is your question? Did you even read the title or are you just opening every thread you didn't post in yet and get another +1?
When can we expect maps to bring back the older era of map making (2001-2008) and no longer have any eggs or additional blocking mechanisms for full wall offs with only 1 unit to create the full block?
Creating maps that incite more harassing early game or forcing players to be more reactive instead of sitting behind the wall off creates and instills more exciting gameplay as well as enabling a more reactive gameplay if behind.
On November 20 2025 13:47 Soft_General_5023 wrote: Many of the maps are co-created with top korean players,
For example Radeon description: "Made by Waldstein, co worked with Light, Snow, Soulkey .."
How much say have these players in the release version of the map, regarding balance?
Is it "approved" by all 3 races players for balance?
Hey, I'm not Waldstein, but based on the Korean Namuwiki translated by Google AI, seems like players were very involved in these AMD map projects (Vermeer, Radeon). Vermeer "failed" due to having only 3 players' feedback, whereas Radeon had 7 players' AND 910 the ASL map administrator himself.
However, NEMEC, the creator of Blitz Y & Deja Vu, posted the following on this very forum:
On January 01 2025 16:27 POPsNemec wrote: While the changes in 'Radeon' were beneficial for average players, I believe they introduced elements that favor Terran in high-level play. That said, the AMD project's goals warranted giving Terran certain advantageous features.
Radeon's special thanks section included NEMEC, along with LatiAs & Earthattack too, so take that as you will.
Why arent you taking more risk When making 4 players map ? Comes to mind Return of the king. Maps that bring mobility and multiple points to fight. Also that includes more mixes of high grounds lowgrounds etc. Comes to mind Escalade. Another question is that Why Sim city has got so difficult for zerg in recent maps and the 4 expansion so hard to defend vs protoss ? This is making zerg players suffer too great to survive to hive and is one of the reason zerg players past years are focused on ending the game as quick as possible.
On November 20 2025 13:47 Soft_General_5023 wrote: Many of the maps are co-created with top korean players,
For example Radeon description: "Made by Waldstein, co worked with Light, Snow, Soulkey .."
How much say have these players in the release version of the map, regarding balance?
Is it "approved" by all 3 races players for balance?
Hey, I'm not Waldstein, but based on the Korean Namuwiki translated by Google AI, seems like players were very involved in these AMD map projects (Vermeer, Radeon). Vermeer "failed" due to having only 3 players' feedback, whereas Radeon had 7 players' AND 910 the ASL map administrator himself.
On January 01 2025 16:27 POPsNemec wrote: While the changes in 'Radeon' were beneficial for average players, I believe they introduced elements that favor Terran in high-level play. That said, the AMD project's goals warranted giving Terran certain advantageous features.
Radeon's special thanks section included NEMEC, along with LatiAs & Earthattack too, so take that as you will.
Hope this helps!
Interesting. Radeon has this really exploitable ground only intersection in front of the 10 o'clock base which at least Flash knows how to exploit it by laying 12 siege tanks there which is unbreakable from the protoss perspective. Is this the way forward for SC1? It makes for cookie cutter games, in my opinion. If I wanted SC2, I wouldn't be doing it watching SC1.
whenever I find myself reading an mtcn post by accident, I feel both confused and amused - but also oddly animated, because it's like being taken on a journey where there's no possible way to predict the destination
On December 03 2025 01:02 Kraekkling wrote: whenever I find myself reading an mtcn post by accident, I feel both confused and amused - but also oddly animated, because it's like being taken on a journey where there's no possible way to predict the destination
I'm the guy looking into the fridge rubbing my hands together then closing it in disappointment.
I highlighted the section in bold, so you can see where I'm replying, but since you don't open the nested quote you cannot follow what I'm replying to.
How come maps never have hostile neutral units? Like a map could be designed where the two mains are really close to each other but you have to go around by land if you put a line of neutral hostile valks in a line bisecting the map to stop fast mutas - or have a neutral hostile hydra or goliath or something blocking an otherwise safe back expo. Why no hostile neutrals?
On December 05 2025 02:48 ThunderJunk wrote: How come maps never have hostile neutral units? Like a map could be designed where the two mains are really close to each other but you have to go around by land if you put a line of neutral hostile valks in a line bisecting the map to stop fast mutas - or have a neutral hostile hydra or goliath or something blocking an otherwise safe back expo. Why no hostile neutrals?
Because it's not possible on melee maps.
The fact that we even have neutral buildings/neutral units is more of a bug or an abuse of a specific mechanic of the map making tool.
Oh that makes sense about the neutral hostile units then.
One other question - how come there are never suboptimal resource expansions? Like make unbuildable terrain where the cc would go, so the only way to mine from the expo is to mine from a suboptimal distance? Not for every expo, obviously, but for some weird optional 5th or 6th semi-expo with 4 mineral patches up a narrow ramp that's 2 or 3x farther from the nearest buildable terrain or something like that?
Where do I go to download the maps pros are using these days?
I was Code S a long time ago, but have not played 1vs1 in 12 years. I want to see if I can rank back up.
Also, what are Artosis and Stryker's real ranks relative to the old Iccup ranking? I think Stryker is A+ and Artosis is only B+ based on a series of 3 games I just watched Stryker schooling Artosis.
EPT
