Expansions become progressively more difficult to hold - or if not, there are appropriate tradeoffs. This can be achieved through one or more varied techniques:
- Players are spread thinner and thinner as they expand (typically inherent with map design)
- Later game expansions become more open with larger choke points
- Expansions have progressively increasing harassment vulnerabilities
- “Reverse” expansions, ledges, LoS blockers, multi-entrance
- Expansions move closer to the opponent (typically inherent with map design)
- Expansion placement or spacing requires defending players to split up armies or make more complex defense choices (ie no place to “park” a defensive army)

Space, cliffing, and choke points are sized appropriately and allocated proportionately throughout the map
- Expansions are proportionately sized for production, army placement, and wall-offs
- There are not excessively large spaces or unnecessarily constricted areas
- Open areas for army engagements are appropriately sized and placed correctly
- There are no significant dead areas of the map, and for the dead air space, it is balanced and intentional
- Paths are appropriately and intentionally sized and for their purpose and stage in the game they will be used
- Cliffwork and choke point placement is intentional and well thought out to balance defenders advantage with providing opportunities for engagements, counter attacks, surrounds, and multi-prong harassment

Pathing is clean, clear, meaningful, and tied to the map design concept
- Unit movement across the map is clear and units follow an expected path without excessive splitting/splintering or major movement changes from small differences in clicks
- Players can anticipate the way an army will move at a glance without deciphering or decoding terrain/path options
- Players make meaningful pathing choices when attacking into different expansions and controlling key areas of the map (ie pathing options are not excessive or omnidirectional)
- Paths throughout the map tie into the map design concept. Some standout examples are 10,000 Feet, Automaton, Golden Wall, Terraform, and King Sejong Station.

The map avoids terrain and layout pitfalls that discourage comebacks, and/or lower skill expression
- Two entrances to expansions that are closer for the attacker to ping-pong between than the defender, creating an impossible scenario for the defender
- A “safe” air path between players that is shorter than ground distance, creating an impossible to attack without risk of a counterdrop or base trade
- Split pathing that is difficult to scout and/or unrelated to the map concept, often resulting in basetrades or armies missing each other
- Split map, aka top vs bottom: a map layout that is easily divided by sides, with players retaining significant distance between each other even during late game scenarios, resulting in slow/stale gameplay. Note: this can happen even on maps with “neutral” bases.
- Tunnels or corridors that are excessively long, narrow, or critical to use, often creating excessive difficulty for players caught out of position with low opportunity for counterplay
- Excessively short or excessively long distances between players, resulting in either stale gameplay or too little time to react defensively
- Highly linear paths: straight lines and direct paths often create uninteresting or repetitive movement with little room for skill expression and differentiation between map gameplay
- Constricted center map width: a map with only a few paths through the center, or an unnecessarily constricted middle can be too easy to scout, predict movement, and pre-plan engagements, leading to stale and/or repetitive gameplay
- Overly standard map features with few or no features differentiating the map from others we’ve seen over StarCraft 2’s history of competitive maps