iGrok Profile Blog Joined October 2010 United States 5008 Posts #1 I had the opportunity to interview Stefan "MorroW" Andersson about the state of maps in StarCraft 2. I had planned to ask him a few questions, analyze a few maps from Map of the Month, and just have a nice, short interview, but it quickly developed into a much broader discussion about the state of mapping as a whole, spanning nearly four hours and 8,300 words*. So, without further ado, here goes:





MorroW at IEM with a Large Cheque - picture credit missing



Hey MorroW! Thanks for talking to me today. You're widely respected as the one of the most vocal SC2 pros when it comes to balance, and you've been known to show the map community some love as well! Great to have you here today.



Hello, thanks, its great to be here ^^.





What are your plans in the near future?



Well, I’ll keep on doing what I do. Practice hard and attend many tournaments; online tournaments and hopefully a few lans ^^. And of course switch to protoss (jk).





I'd like to talk to you about the current Ladder map pool. What is your favorite map, and why?



My most favorite map in the map pool has to be Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis. I really like Metalopolis because it has so much open space and many expansions that are easily defended, but also very accessible for your opponent to harass and engage into. What I don’t like about Metalopolis is when I spawn close positions. Its very hard for us Zerg to take a 3rd base, and usually my Terran or Protoss opponent is forced to try to kill me with 2 bases because he cannot take a 3rd base either.



Xel’Naga caverns is more interesting with the terrain layout. The expansion areas are differently protected and can be stopped and harassed as well. Both these maps encourage macro styles, but there is much room for different play-styles as well.





NSPGenius recently leaked some new maps being considered for the GSL. In general, they seem to be designed for much longer games. Are these better than the Ladder maps? What concerns do you have about them?



I’m really concerned that they made them too large. Some of the GSL maps are a nice size, like SC1 maps, but other GSL maps are larger. I think the really large maps will create both uninteresting games as well as imbalance, because being aggressive can be too hard. Blizzard makes them too small, GSL maps are too large… maybe I’m just picky ^^.



Tal'Darim Altar has 20 expansions... to me at least that seems like way to many for competitive 1v1. In SC1, maps had 10-16 bases usually. 10 of course for the 2 player maps such as destination, and Othello for 4 player map but designed for 1x1 of course. I think the way SC2 is designed, even 16 bases will be too much for a 1v1.



Another thing I don’t like about the maps is the way they experiment with gold bases that have no Vespene. I think it is actually a terrible idea and I think its almost too early to start experimenting like that. Other than that I think the maps look pretty nice.





The Map of the Month Organization has pulled 5 top maps from Team Liquid's top map makers. Can I get your opinion of these maps?



Ok, I'll start with





Some people compare Glacial Spike to Scrap Station. What's your take?



I think this map looks very nice. The distances are pretty far, but at same time, the natural has 2 entrances, so that kind of evens out. This map looks better than the last one. On Glacial Spike, I can see ways and patterns for each race to expand. In a dimensional map, you always want to have the option to expand further or to attack. I have a big main to harass and a 3rd base more open. The distance between 3rd and natural is nice, so that the aggressor can attack at different locations, like on Metalopolis.



One thing I wouldn’t mind is for the 4th base that’s between 3rd and natural to get a second ramp and a bit more space to it. The second ramp would kind of stick into the middle area, because at the moment it feels a bit weird and inaccessible. The cliffs are nice for harass too.





The Crucible is becoming popular among players.



This map looks very small. The 3rd bases are in the middle of the map. When the distance between my 3rd and my opponent's main is so close, its generally a sign of a small, cramped map. The rush distance can be very far, but what’s important are the key areas of the map. Basically, the location where u want to defend your 3rd base from. There’s the gold base that’s tankable by siege tanks from the opponents side of the map.



The ideas in the map I like, the reason for the layout, but it just seems that mapmakers in SC2 tend to make expos that are neutral. In SC1, expansions were rarely neutral. Take a map like





Decline has some interesting expansions, like a 3 gas expo in the NW and SE, and 1 gas expo in the SW and NE.



I just want to start off with, he thinks just like Blizzard ^^. How a map looks so cool and awesome as an overall map, but there’s some basic thing wrong with it. Here you have same flaw as Lost Temple and Metalopolis. Sure the map is good in far spots, but, if you end up spawning close positions here, there’s no 3rd base. Not only that, but there is no flank room. Imagine you have Roach and Hydras in PvZ close positions. He comes with 2 base Colossus timing push, where do you get a surround and flank? It’s just a tight small hallway, and that doesn’t work.



Let’s pretend there’s no close position spawns, like Shakuras. Now suddenly this map looks a lot better. It’s actually a bit "turtleish". What I mean by that is taking 5bases kinda gives me the lost temple feeling to it. Now much of this could be fixed just by improving the size between the close pos spawn locations, but I’d just open up the area more, like LT’s openness.





Mirage is the last of the MotM maps this month. It really seems to emphasize controlling key areas.



Lol. Ok ill try to focus ^^.



Haha, yeah the cat does that ^^



Now in Mirage, you actually have, just like we were discussing before, neutral bases. If you spawn vertically, in let’s say a TvZ, you can’t really take the 12 o’clock because it’s so friggin far, and the 9 o’clock is right in the middle of the 2 players, just like on Metal close positions.



In horizontal positions, you have a very nice 3rd base. I like the map quite a bit for horizontal, but vertically it gives me the kind of an in-your face playstyle vibe. He could improve the map by making the 12 and 6 o clock bases a bit closer into middle and increasing the size of the ramps outside the natural (the large ramps). It just seems a bit cramped around the middle, while the actual middle is nice and open. A Protoss is just going to walk around the border, and as long as he avoids stepping on the cat sand box in middle he’ll be fine. Theres no flanking room.



All of these maps are less Blizzardish, but not really SC1 maps. They are somewhere in the middle.





Well that leads us to the Big Question. Would you like to play on these maps in tournaments and on the ladder?



Well, anything is better than Steppes of War ^^. Or LT or Metal close positions. Or Delta Quadrant… haha. I guess these maps could turn out nicely, but the overall feeling that I get from these maps is that they weren’t created by high level players. Glacial Spike is the map I like most of these, because I can picture in my head how each race will defend and attack different bases.





MorroW at IEM - picture credit MorroW at IEM - picture credit diejulie





What do you think of the SC2 iCCup Monthly Map pool?



Well, some maps are a lot better than others. But all of them have things that must be improved. The idea behind Sungsu Crossing is very interesting. Obsidian Inferno is just a straight up idea of a map... Well let me put it this way: what it has right now is fine, but I think there are ways to make the map more interesting. iCCup Europa interests me a lot, and I think this map idea has potential. But the common issue again is these expos in middle require constant map control. Europa definitely stands out from the others I think. I love Match Point, but I don’t think mineral-only expansions work in SC2.



As a mapmaker, I think it makes a lot of sense to think, “Ok, this will be a small expo, like 5 patches and 1 geyser.” But whenever I play maps like that, I just hate it. If we (as players and as mappers) state out what we want, then we can focus on making maps, rather than making maps without knowing how they should look.





Well, what are some of the issues with the current maps? Why do people complain about them?



Well the most general issue people have with the maps here in the e-sport community is that they are very small, so defending rushes and establishing an economic game is quite difficult. Later on in a match, the main issue is establishing a 3rd base, which is quite hard in some circumstances.





Which maps are the worst about that? Besides Steppes of course ^^.



Delta Quadrant is very difficult for someone to expand even once, and the distance between your opponent and self is so ridiculously short that it hurts play a lot. Lost Temple and Metalopolis, in close positions suffer. DQ does have pleasant 3rd bases though. You have maps like jungle basin where taking your 2nd base is quite fine, and people like that. But because the 3rd base is so close to your opponent, it often makes the midgame quite difficult for the one trying to get further economy. When you actually say that double expanding as Zerg (after your natural) is the best way to take a 3rd base, it just means that the layout of the map is terrible.





So for a map-making community, you think that SC1 maps are the way to start. What about after that? Crossfire is an SC1 port and is being considered for GSL, do you like that map?



Well, Crossfire is a very old school map. I think it’s best to look at these "newer" maps which brought in the real macro games, and find out what made them so popular and work so well, what made it possible to attack and defend. Off the top of my head, pretty much all of them from 2008 onwards would be good starts. But they would of course need tweaking. People should just focus at trying to create maps that are macro oriented and gives an opportunity to take expansions. People aren’t asking for much in maps right now, but where our current maps fail is on a very basic level.





Do you think mappers should have a standard map style, and go from there to make their own maps?



Yeah, exactly. Whenever you think about a map concept, you should think about the simple stuff, and then get more into it. People aren’t asking for Xel’Naga towers covered in high grass that are accessible through destroying rocks. People are just asking for maps that can let them play standard straight up macro games without any bullshit added. If I play lost temple cross positions, I think, “ok, absolutely great - except this fucking cliff drop.” If I play Metalopolis i say ok good, unless he’s in close positions. That’s why Xel’Naga is the most popular and all-around solid map. It doesn’t have any obvious flaws that make people hate it ^^.





Thats a good lesson for mappers to take away: Keep it simple, not too gimmicky, and people will like it ^^.



Then, in like 6 months, people will ask for more and more from the maps. Mapping should go through a natural course, where you keep adding and changing. SC1 had Python, then later on came plasma, and finally new school maps with egg blocks and neutral arbiters just placed out on standard macro maps to make them more interesting, and I hope mapmakers in SC2 think the same way.





Actually, I think the reason why balancing is nearly impossible is because of ZvP. If you have too much flanking room, toss army loses; if it’s too tight, FF and colossus absolutely demolishes everything. It’s a lot harder to design maps than in SC1 because its sooo much about the flanking space etc. Xel’Naga has open spaces but also tight places, that’s why it’s so good.



To be completely honest I have no obvious answer. I just think there are obvious flaws in the current maps that people hate. Designing good maps in SC2… it feels sort of impossible to balance for ZvP late game. It takes a huge fucking area for a Zerg to fight a Protoss late-game. With a 180+ food Protoss deathball, all maps will feel cramped.



I almost feel SC2 would be best off just having different maps for different matchups, because a ZvP is so different from TvZ and PvT. In SC1, if you had a 3rd base with a small choke, it would help defend for all races vs all races. Sunkens and Lurkers would make it defendable for Zerg, walls and Siege Tanks for Terran, and wall, Cannon, and Storm for Protoss. But in SC2 they defend the expansions so differently -Terran and Protoss want it tight, and Zerg wants a huge area to flank outside of the expo. Thats why I think it’s almost impossible to balance it.





Well, we have to try! I really appreciate you taking the time for this great interview, even though it kind of turned into a huge discussion ^^. Any last words or shout outs you want to give?



^^. When I was only Terran, it was easier for me to see maps and say, “this is good, this is bad.” But now that I really understand Z on a top-level, everything is just too complicated; I think everything is bad in one way or another. As a Terran, I see Metalopolis' 3rd base as extremely open. But when I think as a Zerg, I think, "Wow, this needs to become even larger to battle against Colossus & force field."



That’s probably the most depressing shout out you’ll ever hear lol.



I will say that if we merged the community's high level pro-gamers along with mapmakers and their creative touch into 1 big brain, I think it would give amazing results. Pro-gamers need to be active in the map community, explaining what they want and why.



That would benefit everybody - mappers and players. Well, thanks again for this terrific interview MorroW. Good luck in the future!





*It was a very long discussion, and I've put my favorite, and imo key, parts here. Big thanks yet again to MorroW for spending so long talking with me!



Hello, thanks, its great to be here ^^.Well, I’ll keep on doing what I do. Practice hard and attend many tournaments; online tournaments and hopefully a few lans ^^. And of course switch to protoss (jk).My most favorite map in the map pool has to be Xel'Naga Caverns or Metalopolis. I really like Metalopolis because it has so much open space and many expansions that are easily defended, but also very accessible for your opponent to harass and engage into. What I don’t like about Metalopolis is when I spawn close positions. Its very hard for us Zerg to take a 3rd base, and usually my Terran or Protoss opponent is forced to try to kill me with 2 bases because he cannot take a 3rd base either.Xel’Naga caverns is more interesting with the terrain layout. The expansion areas are differently protected and can be stopped and harassed as well. Both these maps encourage macro styles, but there is much room for different play-styles as well.I’m really concerned that they made them too large. Some of the GSL maps are a nice size, like SC1 maps, but other GSL maps are larger. I think the really large maps will create both uninteresting games as well as imbalance, because being aggressive can be too hard. Blizzard makes them too small, GSL maps are too large… maybe I’m just picky ^^.Tal'Darim Altar has 20 expansions... to me at least that seems like way to many for competitive 1v1. In SC1, maps had 10-16 bases usually. 10 of course for the 2 player maps such as destination, and Othello for 4 player map but designed for 1x1 of course. I think the way SC2 is designed, even 16 bases will be too much for a 1v1.Another thing I don’t like about the maps is the way they experiment with gold bases that have no Vespene. I think it is actually a terrible idea and I think its almost too early to start experimenting like that. Other than that I think the maps look pretty nice.Ok, I'll start with Pawn . It looks good, but what I don’t like is that the 4th base and fifth requires you to have map control in the center. All matchups work differently of course, but in PvZ it’s just very easy to take a 3rd base as a Protoss. It’s so far away from Zerg, and these ramps will make it pretty easily defendable. Zerg must respond with a 4th base, but its kinda hard to think out of a way to take a 4th easily. You really need center control, and Zerg can’t really keep up a permanent presence like Protoss or even Terran can. This map remind me of Xel’Naga Caverns, but without the possibility to harass the bases easily or make a big flank on Protoss to kill his 3rd base.I think this map looks very nice. The distances are pretty far, but at same time, the natural has 2 entrances, so that kind of evens out. This map looks better than the last one. On Glacial Spike, I can see ways and patterns for each race to expand. In a dimensional map, you always want to have the option to expand further or to attack. I have a big main to harass and a 3rd base more open. The distance between 3rd and natural is nice, so that the aggressor can attack at different locations, like on Metalopolis.One thing I wouldn’t mind is for the 4th base that’s between 3rd and natural to get a second ramp and a bit more space to it. The second ramp would kind of stick into the middle area, because at the moment it feels a bit weird and inaccessible. The cliffs are nice for harass too.This map looks very small. The 3rd bases are in the middle of the map. When the distance between my 3rd and my opponent's main is so close, its generally a sign of a small, cramped map. The rush distance can be very far, but what’s important are the key areas of the map. Basically, the location where u want to defend your 3rd base from. There’s the gold base that’s tankable by siege tanks from the opponents side of the map.The ideas in the map I like, the reason for the layout, but it just seems that mapmakers in SC2 tend to make expos that are neutral. In SC1, expansions were rarely neutral. Take a map like Fighting Spirit from SC1. In close positions you had a "neutralish" expo in the middle of it. What made it not neutral was how the terrain around it was designed. In The Crucible, the gold base’s layout is symmetrical on both sides. The distance is just slightly different but that doesn’t matter much.I just want to start off with, he thinks just like Blizzard ^^. How a map looks so cool and awesome as an overall map, but there’s some basic thing wrong with it. Here you have same flaw as Lost Temple and Metalopolis. Sure the map is good in far spots, but, if you end up spawning close positions here, there’s no 3rd base. Not only that, but there is no flank room. Imagine you have Roach and Hydras in PvZ close positions. He comes with 2 base Colossus timing push, where do you get a surround and flank? It’s just a tight small hallway, and that doesn’t work.Let’s pretend there’s no close position spawns, like Shakuras. Now suddenly this map looks a lot better. It’s actually a bit "turtleish". What I mean by that is taking 5bases kinda gives me the lost temple feeling to it. Now much of this could be fixed just by improving the size between the close pos spawn locations, but I’d just open up the area more, like LT’s openness.Lol. Ok ill try to focus ^^.Now in Mirage, you actually have, just like we were discussing before, neutral bases. If you spawn vertically, in let’s say a TvZ, you can’t really take the 12 o’clock because it’s so friggin far, and the 9 o’clock is right in the middle of the 2 players, just like on Metal close positions.In horizontal positions, you have a very nice 3rd base. I like the map quite a bit for horizontal, but vertically it gives me the kind of an in-your face playstyle vibe. He could improve the map by making the 12 and 6 o clock bases a bit closer into middle and increasing the size of the ramps outside the natural (the large ramps). It just seems a bit cramped around the middle, while the actual middle is nice and open. A Protoss is just going to walk around the border, and as long as he avoids stepping on the cat sand box in middle he’ll be fine. Theres no flanking room.All of these maps are less Blizzardish, but not really SC1 maps. They are somewhere in the middle.Well, anything is better than Steppes of War ^^. Or LT or Metal close positions. Or Delta Quadrant… haha. I guess these maps could turn out nicely, but the overall feeling that I get from these maps is that they weren’t created by high level players. Glacial Spike is the map I like most of these, because I can picture in my head how each race will defend and attack different bases.Well, some maps are a lot better than others. But all of them have things that must be improved. The idea behind Sungsu Crossing is very interesting. Obsidian Inferno is just a straight up idea of a map... Well let me put it this way: what it has right now is fine, but I think there are ways to make the map more interesting. iCCup Europa interests me a lot, and I think this map idea has potential. But the common issue again is these expos in middle require constant map control. Europa definitely stands out from the others I think. I love Match Point, but I don’t think mineral-only expansions work in SC2.As a mapmaker, I think it makes a lot of sense to think, “Ok, this will be a small expo, like 5 patches and 1 geyser.” But whenever Imaps like that, I just hate it. If we (as players and as mappers) state out what we want, then we can focus on making maps, rather than making maps without knowing how they should look.Well the most general issue people have with the maps here in the e-sport community is that they are very small, so defending rushes and establishing an economic game is quite difficult. Later on in a match, the main issue is establishing a 3rd base, which is quite hard in some circumstances.Delta Quadrant is very difficult for someone to expand even once, and the distance between your opponent and self is so ridiculously short that it hurts play a lot. Lost Temple and Metalopolis, in close positions suffer. DQ does have pleasant 3rd bases though. You have maps like jungle basin where taking your 2nd base is quite fine, and people like that. But because the 3rd base is so close to your opponent, it often makes the midgame quite difficult for the one trying to get further economy. When you actually say that double expanding as Zerg (after your natural) is the best way to take a 3rd base, it just means that the layout of the map is terrible.Well, Crossfire is a very old school map. I think it’s best to look at these "newer" maps which brought in the real macro games, and find out what made them so popular and work so well, what made it possible to attack and defend. Off the top of my head, pretty much all of them from 2008 onwards would be good starts. But they would of course need tweaking. People should just focus at trying to create maps that are macro oriented and gives an opportunity to take expansions. People aren’t asking for much in maps right now, but where our current maps fail is on a very basic level.Yeah, exactly. Whenever you think about a map concept, you should think about the simple stuff, andget more into it. People aren’t asking for Xel’Naga towers covered in high grass that are accessible through destroying rocks. People are just asking for maps that can let them play standard straight up macro games without any bullshit added. If I play lost temple cross positions, I think, “ok, absolutely great - except this fucking cliff drop.” If I play Metalopolis i say ok good, unless he’s in close positions. That’s why Xel’Naga is the most popular and all-around solid map. It doesn’t have any obvious flaws that make people hate it ^^.Then, in like 6 months, people will ask for more and more from the maps. Mapping should go through a natural course, where you keep adding and changing. SC1 had Python, then later on came plasma, and finally new school maps with egg blocks and neutral arbiters just placed out on standard macro maps to make them more interesting, and I hope mapmakers in SC2 think the same way.Actually, I think the reason why balancing is nearly impossible is because of ZvP. If you have too much flanking room, toss army loses; if it’s too tight, FF and colossus absolutely demolishes everything. It’s a lot harder to design maps than in SC1 because its sooo much about the flanking space etc. Xel’Naga has open spaces but also tight places, that’s why it’s so good.To be completely honest I have no obvious answer. I just think there are obvious flaws in the current maps that people hate. Designing good maps in SC2… it feels sort of impossible to balance for ZvP late game. It takes a huge fucking area for a Zerg to fight a Protoss late-game. With a 180+ food Protoss deathball, all maps will feel cramped.I almost feel SC2 would be best off just having different maps for different matchups, because a ZvP is so different from TvZ and PvT. In SC1, if you had a 3rd base with a small choke, it would help defend for all races vs all races. Sunkens and Lurkers would make it defendable for Zerg, walls and Siege Tanks for Terran, and wall, Cannon, and Storm for Protoss. But in SC2 they defend the expansions so differently -Terran and Protoss want it tight, and Zerg wants a huge area to flank outside of the expo. Thats why I think it’s almost impossible to balance it.^^. When I was only Terran, it was easier for me to see maps and say, “this is good, this is bad.” But now that I really understand Z on a top-level, everything is just too complicated; I think everything is bad in one way or another. As a Terran, I see Metalopolis' 3rd base as extremely open. But when I think as a Zerg, I think, "Wow, this needs to become even larger to battle against Colossus & force field."That’s probably the most depressing shout out you’ll ever hear lol.I will say that if we merged the community's high level pro-gamers along with mapmakers and their creative touch into 1 big brain, I think it would give amazing results. Pro-gamers need to be active in the map community, explaining what they want and why. MOTM | Stim.tv | TL Mafia | Fantasy Fighting! | SNSD