new account
list users
Map DB
Map Access
New map
Edit map

Back to "beta" maps.   Show all maps.
Last update for (3)Uzi Sara 1.21 : 2023, 03, 16 00:32
mapIDMapname (comments)map sizeAuthorRatingTypeplay type
4870 (3)Uzi Sara 1.21 128*128Jungleterrain1.2betaground

The map has been rated 60 times and got a total of 72 points


You can rate the map here. Chose a grade between 10 (best) and 0 (worst).
Comments:   GMCS (0 elements)

long time no upload.

my laptop was stolen a while back so i don't have any of the things i was working on years ago. i can probably still come back and try to finish some of my unfinished stuff tho

3 player symmetry is hard but its fun. i caught a break so decided to work on something.
I miss u guys :)

my tile editing is atrocious and its not even finished. the ramps might be buggy.
The concept is to separate the nat area but still allow FE play. The idea is to provide enough buildable area for protoss and terran so they can wall/bunker and creep for zerg sunk colonies. not sure if its functional.

my own concerns:
-zerg third gas
-lack of ov spots in mid
-main sizes
-resource placements (mains & nats mostly) relative to each other
-positional imbalances in mains/nats regarding muta harass
-in general, symmetry and use of space
-3rd gas defensibility (different from z 3rd gas concern)

i figure this is good practice tho
modified by JungleTerrain
Looks nice.

You should try to stretch out into the corners a bit more, especially at bottom right and top right. That way you'd get more perimeter and overall space to work with.

You should definitely get Chkdraft for terrain level debugging purposes (as you unwittingly introduced various terrain level bugs by using ramp edges as bridge edges and lower ramp tiles up on ramps).

Those cliff to high temple doodad blends are a nice touch, but I definitely would not leave that whole tampe area droppable, but I assume you do not plan to either.

Main sizes are pretty huge right now, which is not bad on a 3 player map, because it is nice for late game macro space on the one hand and on the other hand offers some safety buffer to compensate for the large perimeter exposed to tank fire from outside (not much of an issue with higher ground mains, though). However, it also takes away from space for other stuff and makes drops and recalls much harder to defend. In general I'd suggest to make the most of large, open spaces like mains by stretching them out along the edges as much as possible to optimize overall space usage. As long as it is possible to place a nice cluster of gates/facts in an area near the ramps, similar overall size and comparable perimeter length are more important than same shape for mains.

I am generally not a big fan of far-away expansions (like the low ground gas bases here) being in tank range of adjacent mains. It creates the odd situation where an otherwise neutral expansion becomes impossible to be taken by one player. I think you have enough room (by stretching out towards the edges and modifying the mains' size and shape) to alleviate this.

As for your other concerns:
- Zerg 3rd gas should not be much of a problem with so many nicely ramped expansions.
- lack of ovi spots is mostly a non-issue: Just add ovi spots where you want them... maybe you could add some high temple in between the main and nat, that would be a pretty sweet spot to have an ovi hiding. You could also use some temple and pyramid doodads (like I did on (4)Atlantis) to create an ovi spost to replace the little water hole in the very centre.
- resource placement/muta harassment: my main concern would be that top and bottom mains are more exposed that the right one. Same story as most three player maps, basically. Maybe you can move the right main's gas to the left and have the minerals curve around on top, seems like the easiest fix here.
- 3rd defensibility: you can always trim choke/ramp widths...

What significance do those mud squares down the main ramps have?
modified by Freakling
Very nice from first impressions.
Nice to see u freakling!

Yea I feel like my space management is off I had no idea the mains were huge (I thought they were on the small side)

I started off with a hex shape for the map to try to fill out the corners as much as I can, but I started to feel that top right was too far away from blue relative to the other players distances with their counterparts (although I think part of this is from my bad use of space and symmetry).

Should I push reds main more into the top left and teals into bottom left? I might have to play with blues main (moving it up or down a bit) and it looks like I could move those expos away from the mains.

And I'm always looking to help Zerg lol. I feel that zvt is harder than tvz, so that's why I look out for them with ov spots and all that. Thnx for the feedback
modified by jungleterrain
I guess I'm asking going from here, should I move the mains to allocate space for changes to the map or should I try to just play with the main shapes as they are and just stretch things into the corners?
modified by jungleterrain
I was testing out Protoss FE at each location so that's where I placed the pylon, needed to have the buildings there to see where the creep colony should go
rather the latter, I'd say. Just do little edits, step by step. Start by separating the counter-clockwise low ground gas expansions from the mains and then look where else you seem room for small optimizations.
Consider replacing some of the main edges with clutter terrain, so there is not so much exposed perimeter.
You should also make blue's main minerals more vulnerable (see my previous post) to balance out muta harassment.
In general, this already looks like a pretty good ZvT map, as defentding both main and nat against mutas seem hard (Marines have to move through 2 narrow ramps to get from the main to the nat, which also makes the distance rather long, and if terran wants to wall in or bunker up on the low ground, they also need a lot of turrets to cover everything (needs turrets in four locations: main, nat, production and low gorund). So I would not worry too much about Zerg third gas (in fact, the way the mains and nats are laid out means that with lurkers a Zerg can pretty easily secure both, the free main and nat). two easily blocked ramps and the forward creep for very fast colonies also means Zerg should be safe against almost any aggressive rush that might get thrown their way. I would, however, shrink the area in front of the ramps a bit, so a colony placed on the edge of the creep does actually cover the ramps, or runbys become problematic. There should still be enough space for Protoss to cannon up behind a wall.

What does the map name mean, by the way?
modified by Freakling
Thnx for the quick response.
Do you know the girl from ed Ed and eddy, Sarah? I imagined her with an uzi the other day cuz she's kinda crazy lol, so that's where I got the name from
Marginally better than if it were named after your girlfriend, I guess...
so i downloaded chkdraft but its just a bunch of small files (resources for chkdraft im guessing), i can't find any .exe or application file, how do u get it to work?
You can get a working version from It is useful solely for the terraindisplay terrain level (or something like that) option.
modified by Freakling
Update, nothing too major:

-Buffer zone around perimeter of mains added.
-Main sizes reduced
-Blue's resources adjusted to be more muta friendly (like the other 2)
-Moved teal's main and nat ramps to the left 1 iso.
-Adjusted High ground expo's (NOT the nat) minerals and gas to face more outward, also pushed further away a bit (to use more of the perimeter of the map).
-Fixed all elevation bugs on bridges and ramps.
-Low ground expos (2/6:30/10) no longer cliffable from main, minerals and gas face more away from mains.
-Modified bridge at 6.
-12 o clock nat reduced high temple a bit.

How's it looking so far?
modified by JungleTerrain
I think you should move the 5 o'clock expansion downwards a bit more.
I don't think the small bridges are actually balanced like this, I am pretty sure the NE one is effectively wider/easier to cross. As these are very small bridges, which should be easy to fit in, even with not perfectly aligned angles, I would probably just put in relatively standard bridges like these:

I think there will be lots of very wonky situations against Zerg, like contains/busts with sunken support and lots of muta harassment, but this might be a good thing, I don't know. depends on whether the fun factor or the balance factor of it all turns out stronger...

Otherwise, I think this will turn out really well. Definitely your best three player map so far.
lol considering I've only made like 2-3 serious 3 player maps...
Minor Update:

-Bridges normalized.
-High ground expo at 5 lowered.
-High ground expo at 1 pushed top right a bit.
-Low ground expo at 10:30 pushed to the left 1 tile.
-Ramp at 12 reduced 1 tile.
modified by JungleTerrain
How many pylons are needed to wall each of the thirds?
Each of them is rather far from the natural and has multiple possible paths of attack leading to it, so to compensate, they should make it easy to set up some solid defence. The small ramps to the clockwise thirds should probably moved closer towards the expansion, so one can set up sunkens or cannons that can defend both the ramp and the town hall/workers.

EDIT: I am not quite sure whether you are aware of this map. Some of the blends I use may be of interest to you.
modified by Freakling
Which thirds are you talking about? The low ground or the high ground one can be taken as a third.

So I haven't finalized all the defensive capabilities of the expos, but here is what I was thinking:

The low ground expos at 2/6/10 will be pylon-blockable with 4 pylons, and the high ground thirds at 1/5/9:30 will have the smaller ramps pylon-blockable by 3, and somehow make the bigger ramps blockable by 3 as well (I think that should work).

Yes I agree that as I've moved the high ground expos more to the perimeter, they've become distant from the small ramps, so I can bring those closer to the actual expo location.
What do you think about the position of the bigger ramps in relation to the expo?
modified by JungleTerrain
And yeah I was actually going to open up your (4)Atlantis and have a look at some of your work, can't do that yet (am on my phone).
The wider ramps could probably be moved closer as well, but only by a bit.
Minor update:

-Small and wider ramps at high ground 1/5/9:30 expos moved closer to the actual location where the expos will be.

Any other areas of concern?

If not, then I'll probably move to trying to work out the chokes and wallins for different races for each spawn.

Then last touch tile editing --> decoration --> resource testing, I suppose.
modified by JungleTerrain
*Increase the high ground clutter to replace the water at 10 and 7 expansions to balance out vision with 2.

*Do the critter/mineral shifting for blue's base

*Not sure if possible, but tanks on the small area between ramp/bridge vary in terms of hitting the worker lines.

*Give Teal's ramp a 2x2 mud space.

-Tried to even out vision at the low ground expos at 2/7/10, hopefully it's more positionally balanced now.
-Increased High Temple areas behind nats a bit to get rid of areas where tanks can hit workers over it.
-Adjusted 2/7/10 so that tanks cannot hit them from the main at all (This includes the minerals, gas, and town hall building).
-As a result of the above change, had to change/reduce main sizes (Red and Blue, am worried maybe Blue's main has gotten small from all the changes, I can enlarge a bit if possible).
-As CD pointed out, tanks on the small area between bridge and ramp varied in terms of hitting workers, but also the town hall. Now it is more balanced (in the sense that), where just being at the foot of the ramp allows tanks to hit workers and the town hall (not perfectly balanced i think, but pretty close).
-Moved Blue Starting Location up 1 tile.
-Moved Teal Starting Location down and left (don't remember how many tiles in which direction).
-2/7/10 minerals and gas moved farther away from the edge of the mains next to them.
-Cluttered space between ramp and bridge a bit (as a result of balancing these positions in regards to what CD said).

Not sure if I missed anything... I made the changes and I didn't upload right away, and I didn't write them down or anything like that.

I looked at the article on how to do that, I'm still kinda confused, I think it says you can't use hallucinated minerals for 3 player maps and instead it's better to use critters?
Also, the 2x2 mud space is not for the players, but for me. They will be removed at some point :P

Woops. on step 2 and 4, you want to enable and disable unit sticks to grid respectively.
modified by CrystalDrag
Ok I will have to try it! Thanks crystal... that's some dope picture explanation
You can use two hallucinated mineral patches, moved up and overlapping one pixel, below the SL, you have to use hallucinated critters on the right hand side, however, as else you'd get stack bug (the bug where players can build on top of the town hall).

I think you should move teal's SL farther to the right and also have the minerals face to the right side (and a bit below) for
- better map symmetry overall
- better balance of distances between main cliffs and mineral lines
- better space for macro area around the ramp
How did u guys learn this stuff? That's some mapghost stuff right there
I started experimenting with trying to get workers to spawn directly in front of the mineral lines (think i was SC2 inspired)... as you can see in the article i made (that i will update) I tried using all minerals first, because i knew that they occupied the full 64x32 box. Messing around with unit collision boxes is one of my funnest things to do. unfortunately i have since lost the original map it was on...It was a super old map, as the decoration in the main wasnt a solid jungle decoration area.

Then freakling came along and used critters for the sides to fix the building stacking problem.
It was really a step by step process thinking and testing.

Step one: push workers around to allow faster split for top mineral positions.
solution: As is well known, unit spawning follows a counter-clockwise pattern. This includes units built in buildings, units created by create unit triggers and initial workers/larvae at game start. So just add any kind of pre-placed neutral units at the bottom left of the town hall and counter-clockwise from there until the desired spawning position for the workers is reached.
problems: you now have random units or buildings in your main...

solution – Step two: make the pushing units overlap the 4x3 tile area of the SL, which will have them removed when a player spawns there.
  • in 3+ player maps, pre-placed units in unused mains will still spawn and be a nuisance
  • if you use building units (this includes resource patches) for the pushing, when the game engine removes them at game start, it will henceforth see the tiles they occupied as not built on, even if there is actually a town hall spawned, thus creating stack bug.
    (as a side note: this is actually true for all kinds of stacked buildings: remove or destroy one of the stack and you can now build a new building on the stack. This is why stacked buildings or resources should always be placed on unbuildable ground [another of those things kespa mappers continuously ignored...])

solution – Step tree:
  • Give the units hallucinatad status, so even if they spawn in an unused main, they will disappear within 3 minutes of game time, which is faster than an unused main would even be scouted in any realistic scenario. (this leaves you with just resource patches and critters for the process, though, as other units need to be places as unit sprites, which cannot be set to be hallucinated, but since it did mostly not matter which units you used to begin with...)
  • minimize overlap. One pixel suffices. This solves some of the stack bugs.

remaining problem: 1 pixel overlap is actually enough to create stack bug on the right side of a town hall.

Solution – Step four: well, than you just use critters there instead...

The minimal amount of units to create a top spawn for workers without any other notable interference is hence four: One hallucinated geyser on the bottom and any three hallucinated critters to the right side, each with a one pixel wide overlap with the 4x3 tile SL area.
modified by Freakling
Have you ever looked at some of mapghosts maps? I don't know if they are playable or not, but they had the weirdest bug exploits and map features i've ever seen. Idk if you have, but it'd be interesting to see what you guys think about it. It might've been on older versions of bw, so they might not even work anymore.

thnx for the explanation guys, i think i knew some of that stuff but piecing it together and working out the clinks to get it to work for melee maps is really nice, good job there, gotta show credit where its due

EDIT: Type "M#" in the author box of the map database on the left here
some of his content
modified by JungleTerrain

-Blue's SL now has the workers spawning on the top (works in game, I tested).
-Changed Teal's SL and resources, moved them to the right and turned the formation the other way.
-Increased Blue main size a little bit.
-Modified cliff edges around mains (red and blue), not very noticeable.
-Modified water areas around mid, again, not very noticeable.

Let me know if anything can be improved.

EDIT: I realize the path to the low ground expo is wider down at 6, I will make it more like its counterparts in the next update (forgot to do it this time).
modified by JungleTerrain
About mapghost's maps: The more crazy stuff usually does not really work (those larvae in the main of that one map would just die immediately from creep deprivation, for example) or are detrimental in terms of good melee gameplay (neutral flag beacons or any kind of "powerup" kind of units that can be picked up by workers just leads to players picking those up and running them into each other's mineral lines, attempting to cause as much havoc and destruction as possible in the process – even if the carrying worker dies, it will drop the powerup in the enemy mineral line, where it will inevitably be picked up by the nearest of their workers, making it unusable for mining, so they best send it disrupt the opponent's mining, and so the cycle repeats on and on and on and...
Null tiles can actually be used for some interesting stuff, but there are a few principal problems in that there are walkable and buildable null tiles, but none which are both, and that even on walkable null tiles unit pathing is actually really rather funky. So basically your choice is between making some really funky, imbalanced one-trick-pony-style feature map with it or rather ruin an actual decent map with a funky feature that no one really understands, invites abuse and will just generally freak the hell out of players (and potentially make them hate you, your map and the whole wide world in general)...
That's some crazy stuff. I never got a chance to try those maps myself or open them up to get a look. I still wonder if there are any bugs/exploits or features or even unit interactions that we don't know about and could be used for mapmaking...
Even something as small as this trick to get the workers spawning somewhere differently is pretty neat.
Well, you can find all kinds of interesting interactions if you think about tiles and units just in terms of their attributes.

Eggs for example are very interesting stuff because of their combination of protperties:

- non building: allow for full overlap with buildings, workers can stack on them, can be cloaked via arbiter, can be parasited, broodlinged, irradiated, mind controlled, hallucinated... (but also makes them non-stackable)

- high armour: hard to destroy with basic units, but easy to break later on, therefore ideal for, for example, using them in natural chokes to support wallins.

- immovable: very unusual for non-buildings (only other examples are installation traps and doors and sieged tanks/Edmund Duke tanks), so unless things like DTs they actually make for a reliable obstacle, that cannot be simply broken by worker glitching.

Now just consider what you want to do, figure out which unit properties you need to achieve that, find a unit that has the right properties (or compromise on your idea until you find something that can actually do the job).

Or you can go the other way: Take a unit and consider all the things that could be donw with each of its properties. This will usually not yield anything in terms of an actual good map idea, though.

-Red's mineral only moved down 1 tile.
-Path to 6 low ground expo is closer in width to its counterparts.
-Red and Blue's main shape modified a bit.

Thinking of moving on to wallins/nats.

Man, it would be really helpful if SCMDraft could show siege tank range...
modified by JungleTerrain
This post is not displayed due to its content



9 cannons on 1 pylon possible with this set up on all positions. Also, dragoons can pass.
Im concerned with the fact that the creep is far from the ramps, but not sure what my options are to bring it closer without A)making Protoss FE difficult to prevent ling runbys and B)provide ample room for cannon space to react to hydra busts.

The creep will be important in ZvT for sure, im guessing in ZvP z would most likely build a third hatch at the ramps so the creep wont matter as much.

Not sure if there's any other way to manipulate creep besides unbuildable terrain. Wonder if creep spawners might be a solution? maybe not.

Maybe my approach is wrong, idk. Havent seen a map with nat layout like this that still tries to provide options for FE.

Actually, I might be thinking wrong about this. In a hydra bust situation, the necessity to build so many cannons comes from the fact that
1)the natural expo (nexus) must be protected
2)the natural expo guards the main entrance into the base.

Here the natural is not protected by the mass of cannons down below. So I could reduce the space for cannons and move the creep closer. Early hydra pressure can be held off at the ramps instead, since it's pretty hard to go up ramps if there are cannons there.
That way, the protoss walls to simply get his 2nd base going, and in the case of a bust he could just retreat back to the ramps (might be a problem with contains).
Thoughts? Sorry I type too much... I think too much -_-
modified by JungleTerrain
modified by JungleTerrain
As for creep spawners, I think a colony is better here. The fact that it can be destroyed to prevent things like sunken/contains is pretty important, just think about Collosseum.

What you could do is use 0-mineral patches to contain the creep unless mined out by a drone. However, this would also influence wallins in weird ways and allow for all kinds of scout trolling (mine out your enemy's minerals to block a wallin...) I guess conditional creep spread ŕ la Outland Colony, Lucid Dream or Dieas Irae is also out of the question here...
modified by Freakling
Yeah I kinda complicated myself with this nat layout :0
Don't overthink it, though. Having the creep as it is right now means that Zerg can plant an emergency sunken faster that with a normal 12 expand, so they're basically safe...
Yea I'm thinking of just moving on and finalizing it. I can always change things later
looks like the left base has a larger choke than the other 2 - takes more to wall
Yeah I was thinking the same, I'll mess around with the choke a bit, let me know how it turns out
Coming along nicely. Dont reduce the space for cannons.

-Did some terrain blends around the high temple areas behind the nats.
-Changed teal's area in front of the sunk to be more similar to the others visually and building space-wise.
-Reduced low ground thirds (2, 6 and 10 o' clock) choke by adding 2x2 doodad, so now pylon-blockable with 3 (not final).
-Added visual cues for players where to build PvZ forge/gateway wall.
-Changed some decoration at mains and other places.
-I think I moved teal's mineral-only expo down 1 tile (don't remember).

I think that's it.
I'm aware that blue's suggested wall for Protoss is not ling tight at top, I'm still playing around with the chokes and the tiles around them. The ideal would be ling tight with 2 zealots. Idk if that sounds right, I don't play much Pvz (I mostly play terran...)

not sure if using doodads to help wall is the best either, some of them are visually confusing, maybe cuz I don't play much.

Happy holidays!

I forgot to use some of your blends freakling, I might switch some out later, they look good
modified by JungleTerrain
I find that water to temple blend looking rather weird and illogical ; unless you want to claim the planet this map is on has some rather apeshit crazy gravitational anomalies, that is...

Guess it's time to get to the fine tuning.

Given how vulnerable the mineral only and how far the low ground gas expansion in the counter-clockwise direction is, you should probably make it at least a six patch expansion. Likewise, the low ground expansion should probably have at least seven patches. You may remove one patch from the high ground expansion instead, but I guess it is alright, given that it is also pretty vulnerable and far from the natural.

You should defintely put some doodads (unwalkable tiles below the geyser at the right-hand side nat, because workers have a strong tendency to respawn below the geyser in that position, which makes 3-worker mining very slow, compared to the optimal positions (which both of the other nats have).
The same goes for bottom right 3rd.

I would also move the geyser at the 3 O'clock expansion one to the right, because that actually makes quite the difference mining-wise. I am not sure how that pans out with tank,ranges from the low ground, but you could just add some dooads to fix such issues.

The geyser at the bottom low ground expansion is actually in a terrible position. I think it would be best to move it to the right-hand side of the town hall (and place some unwalkable tiles below it to optimize worker respawns, like I suggested for the other nat and third.
Or shift the minerals around and place he geyser directly below the town hall.

I think when this and my latest collection of 3 player maps are finished, we should run a test tourney to advertise these for iCCup. Maybe Cardinal or Crystal can also make a 3 player map for that ;D
modified by Freakling
Getting me to make a 3 player map would be quite the achievment
Aw, give it a try CD!


I'll add some mineral patches to the mentioned expos.

I haven't tested any resources yet, I'm still planning on playing around with the terrain.

And yeah, that would be fun to get some people to play on these maps. It would probably be like a Crazy 3-Player Map Tourny or something cuz each one seems to be pretty unique (even this one, I don't know how having the nat placed like this affects balance, although I tried to mitigate it as much as I can).

Also, I've been thinking about finishing (3)Miss You, that could potentially be another 3 player map. And I wouldn't like to force my map into ICCup, if it catches on then it catches on.

Edit: Misunderstood some of what you said freak.
modified by JungleTerrain
"I would also move the geyser at the 3 O'clock expansion one to the right, because that actually makes quite the difference mining-wise. I am not sure how that pans out with tank,ranges from the low ground, but you could just add some dooads to fix such issues."

What are you talking about here? There is no expansion there and the geysers at the main, nat are already on the right.
modified by JungleTerrain
I meant the 9 o'clock (it applies to the 6 o'clock as well).
modified by Freakling
Minor update:
-moved low ground expos further back so they have similar building space.
-messed around with the blends (now not as illogical as before).
-some deco.
O_O Amazing array of temple to cliff blends you got there !
Tanks can hit the 9 o'clock geyser from the 8 o'clock natural. You could probably move the natural, ramps and main down a bit to fix this, the main still has a lot of wiggling room to the map edges anyway.

I feel like mutas will be very hard to deal with on this map. There are four focal points of defence for a terran: the main resources, the natural, a barracks area on top of the main ramp and the ramp/low ground area itself. The main minerals are very exposed and the natural ones have a cliff very close behind. Maybe you can add some more buildable space behind the natural minerals.

The vertical ridge at the top is somewhat narrower than the other ones.
modified by Freakling
Yeah I am adjusting teal's main right now in my current version I'm working on, so I can work out that tankability problem at the 9 at the same time.

I was thinking about this, but do you think that making the natural mineral lines face against the edges of the map instead of against the temple wall would be a good solution? The 3 nats are already square up against the edges of the map, would be pretty simple to do.

That way the nat would be way less vulnerable than it is now, but the main will remain as vulnerable. If anything, this rewards FE for the reduced risk as opposed to 1 base play (mostly talking about TvZ here).

Should I touch the mineral lines in the mains?

Agree with the vertical ridge, I wasn't sure if I wanted to widen it, but I could do like 1-2 tiles
Teal's main will probably remain floating around as it is right now, even if you can close some of the gaps, so its minerals will also be more exposed. I think this makes balancing main minerals in a safe position rather difficult (probably impossible) to do. So putting the natural minerals against the edge instead seems like a reasonable thing to do.
yeah, my inexperience with 3 player maps really shows there :P
seems like I missed a few replies here...

Getting me to make a 3 player map would be quite the achievment

You have done it before. If the result was not top notch, just remember: Failure is usually a necessary step to mastery.
If you lack concepts: Redo one of LastCurse's ones!

I haven't tested any resources yet, I'm still planning on playing around with the terrain.

Gas positions are predictable for the most part. You should not put any effort into mineral lines until as the very last step, when the only terrain editing left to do is deco, and that excludes any sort of terrain level or walkability changes and using doodad tiles! That being said, doing some edits to "random" cliff edges or scattering some unwalkable doodads are actually great ways to fix the most obnoxious mining bugs (where multiple patches at the same expansion are affected and there is not really any wiggling room to move the whole thing around). This is how I got close to absolutely perfect mining on (3)Reap the Storm.

And yeah, that would be fun to get some people to play on these maps. It would probably be like a Crazy 3-Player Map Tourny or something cuz each one seems to be pretty unique (even this one, I don't know how having the nat placed like this affects balance, although I tried to mitigate it as much as I can).

That would be the idea.

Also, I've been thinking about finishing (3)Miss You, that could potentially be another 3 player map.

For that one, I don't think you can really solve the linearity issue due to the ring-shaped layout. Or have you got plans to radically change the basic concept? To balance the many mineral only expansions, you should probably consider adding a second geyser to the high ground expansion. Or maybe use reduced geyseres at the mineral onlies ((3)Hazard Black-style, basically).

And I wouldn't like to force my map into ICCup, if it catches on then it catches on.

Getting those maps some play and publicity, so they get the chance to catch on, is the idea. iCCup definitely needs more three player maps ... Everybody needs more three player maps! Especially not too gimmicky ones.
modified by Freakling
No I do not have plans to radically change the basic concept on (3)Miss You. It wouldn't be the same map!
I'm planning on finishing some of my older maps, so many of them are unfinished.

And I'll probably move on to making more 3 player maps, the symmetry is difficult but the end result is very satisfying as a mapmaker. I'm taking this map as a learning experience, even with this map... if I would have placed the mains in better locations I could have had better space management. But that's all for the next map I suppose.
By now space management is actually pretty good with this one. That you have a floating main in the bottom left corner I would say is a result of your overall expansion layout being shifted slightly ("half an hour", so to speak) clockwise, whereas the ideal "textbook" (if there were one ;D ) case of a three player map would have 12 expansions at the exact hour positions. This does not necessarily affect overall space economy badly, but it makes it harder to balance things positionally, as you end up with these floating corner bases (which do not actually fit into the corner, though, without stretching out things unreasonably). This is most noticeable here with your bottom left main and the top right high ground third.

The way I construct my three player maps is the following (I'll use (3)Légionnaire as an example, because its geometry makes it the most stereotypical example):

I start out with an equilateral triangle with edges at the exact clock positions (let's say 2, 6 and 10, as on Légionnaire).
Then I add the mains, either clockwise or counterclockwise (as on Légionnaire) from those positions. You get two mains close to adjacent corners this way (). The third will end up around the middle of the opposite edge of the map, which means it needs to be squeezed out a bit (that would be the 9 o'clock main on Légionnaire). You will also offset the actual centre of the map away from that main to make more room for everything you need (it is just by two tiles on Légionnaire, which is, which is, as you already pointed out in its map thread, borderline too little. It is easier with top/bottom mains, as on Frogstar, but even that uses an offset of (-4,4) from the centre, which is probably about the ideal amount (although the 9 o'clock base has become hard to squeeze in...)
The other two outer bases I then construct into the gap which, using tank range spacing, will result into a more-or-less clock-positioning of those as well (and any slight offset or unequalness of distances is less significant than unequal natural to natural distances would be).

That being said, this map in particular is constructed around the positions of the double ramps between mains and naturals, which lead into the actual choke here and actually follow clock-positioning (4/8/12 o'clock). The offset of the expansions is therefore a direct consequence of the offset of the natural choke from the actual nat to the space in between main and nat (which results in an offset of about half an expansion, or "half an hour", obviously). You could have chosen to offset the chokes instead, of course, but that would have made it hard to fit the ramps in, because of their limited flexibility of angles. So overall, you probably ended up with the best possible compromise.

EDIT: Another interesting observation: Incidentally your layout intrinsically alleviates the major geometric problem of all three player maps:
Due to the mains not being neatly in the corners, as on a standard four player map), the distance to the closest expansions in clockwise and counterclockwise directions differs a lot, as on one side the bulk of the main gets inadvertently in the way of things and makes the distance in that direction very long whereas in the "natural-side" direction the distance easily ends up a bit too short. So your shifting the choke a bit in the main direction gives a bit of inherent relief from that problem, which makes this kind of main-nat setup a very interesting choice for three player maps in general. Was this something you have considered beforehand, or is it just a lucky coincidence.

EDIT2: Another thing I forgot to mention over typing up all the other stuff:
For balancing the clockwise thirds a bit better (1 o'clock has a lot of open water space behind, 9 o'clock none whatsoever), maybe you could shift the resources around, so the minerals face towards the cliff (somewhat like I did on Vĺrens Töväder, which is actually kind of reminiscent of your map in the aspect of how natural and close third are set up relative to each other). This would also help to get the geyser out of the way of tanks on the 9 O'clock.
modified by Freakling
I honestly got the concept by looking at some older maps here on the site. I literally used the "random map" button at the top right and got some inspiration... A lot of BWMN mappers from years ago have experimented with different natural setups, with some notable ones being like the one from that asphalt tileset 4 player map losttampon made, forget the name. Also fuirae, one of my earlier maps, with the colosseum-like nat setup. So I was like, " I bet I can make this work somehow..."

I actually am quite aware that the main-side expansion seems to be far on a lot of 3-player maps, so here I tried to mitigate as much as I could by adjusting the main shapes and make the counterclockwise thirds (high ground expos) farther in ground distance with that huge overlord spot. If I had made blue's main more elongated it would have made that low ground expo at 2:30 seem way farther than its counterparts, as well.

I guess I opted with a smaller center in favor of more "circular" mains, as opposed to elongated (I also think they look better).
It works out I think because it feels like you can expand in either direction more or less. Expos feel more neutral than, say like Demian for example.

If you expand to the high ground, you are rewarded with an extra mineral patch and high ground, but you have to defend 2 entrances, and you can get cut off if your opponent takes the ridge.
In the other direction of expansion you can more easily secure the mineral only since it is on the way (I feel terrans will choose this more), the expansion has 1 choke, low ground but 1 less patch.
modified by JungleTerrain
I was actually thinking at first of making this a 4 player map, but I don't have enough 3 player maps, and I needed something... more challenging :P
modified by JungleTerrain
You can work with nice round mains here, because you have a relatively basic open middle, which does not require that much space to work. The reason why I needed to squeeze the mains against the edges as much as possible on both Légionnaire and Frogstar is that both maps use a rather intricate design for the centre part, which demands as much space as at all possible to work well.
Update, nothing too big.
Hope you guys are having a great 2017!

I don't remember all the changes I made, but I am looking at pictures before and after and trying to remember o_o

-Mains for all 3 players slightly bigger.
-Added a bit more high temple between nat and high ground third at 9 o' clock to prevent tanking.
-Moved Teal's main, nat and ramps 1 isom.
---> As a result of above change, ramp/wallin area for teal adjusted.
-Shifted minerals and gas at all naturals, minerals up against map edge now.
-Shifted minerals and gas at all high ground thirds, now they are up against the clutter high temple wall/blends.
-Slightly more space at 10 o' clock low ground expo.
-Slightly less space at 1 o' clock high ground expo (increased high temple clutter 1 isom).

I think that's it


Haven't tested in-game for more obvious tank spots.
I realize I forgot to touch the top ridge... I will get to that next update.
Small update:

-Moved Teal's mineral only right 1 tile.
-Used wrong elevation tiles at Teal's nat, swapped them out for the correct ones.
-Top ridge is now more equal in size to its counterparts.
-Random decoration, doodads, fixed some pathing stuff.
Super Cool map.

The creep colony looks a bit far forward. I'd maybe push it inwards a bit.

If the protoss is trying to defend against hydra busts, they can probably add some cannons on the high ground in the main, right?
Long time no see neobowman :)

Yeah that is one of my concerns but right now I feel more comfortable giving Protoss the preference of the low ground area. If you read some of my comments I was thinking the same.
In zvt also the creep will allow the z to build a sunken line, but a third hatchery at the low ground will also allow this and in zvp will let you sim city.
I can see zergs also trying to hold the ramps with just lurkers. Idk... I'll stick with this for now and maybe after some play testing I'll see what needs to be adjusted
modified by JungleTerrain
There is a lot of stuff (like early marine pressure, vulture runbys) that a terran can throw at a Zerg which Zerg probably want to defend with an early sunken and requiring a third hatch on the low ground would not only delay such emergency sunkens by a lot but also make 2-hatch play unfeasible. And seeing the predominant occurrence of early Zealot pressure in ZvP nowadays, pretty much the same is true for ZvP.
Actually, even ZvZ is the same with Speedling pressure. But at least that is an equal opportunity for both players.
I think the creep is pretty good as it is right now.
Here lemme elaborate a bit.

In the 7 o clock, you can build 2 creep colonies there immediately but you need to wait for at least 1 colony to spawn and for the creep to spread to get more. 11 o clock. Same deal.

The 3 o clock is in the worst shape atm. You can only build 1 sunk initially and any resulting sunken line is pretty misshapen. Even if you don't fix the other stuff, I think this is pretty critical.

The stuff I'm worried about is like this.

Flash scans at 7:07, no creeps. Attack hits, 7:39. That's not enough to make 2 sets of sunks.

You can build a creep colony early on but that's a fair bit of disadvantage for Zerg. That, and the choke at the natural right now isn't really much of a choke for the marines to go through when the sunken line is so far out. It's very wide so the marines can fire at an angle to be more efficient. And right now you can't line the sunks up straight. You have to bunch them up instead.

None of it's a huge factor but having all 3 seems a bit much. I did some quick mock-ups of possible solutions.

For the 7 I pushed around the creep colony and a couple doodads here and there. It seems a bit cramped for Protoss cannons though so perhaps extend the natural cliff a bit further into the valley so that the choke is still there for the sunkens even with the colony still further out. You just need to remove some of the unbuildable rocks

For the 11 I extended the bulidable ground a bit further so that the creep could stay where it is and a sunken line is immediately available.

The 3 o clock is pretty brutal. Took me a while to get even a halfway decent solution I'm only partially happy with this because it only allows a straight line of 3 sunkens and it's really far out front of the choke and vulnurable.

Edit: I'm sort of having second thoughts because know colosseum had a similar setup to this and it wasn't that bad. That said, Colosseum permitted high ground sunkens from the nat to also defend and 5 rax wasn't nearly as popular then as it is now. The sunken also allows offensive sunkens though. Hmm. I'm more split on this than I thought.
modified by neobowman
Those are valid concerns neobowman, and as you can see it's pretty difficult to theorycraft exactly what's balanced or not with the nat setup like this. I feel like I'd rather see how it plays out and make adjustments based on that.

There's a reason why maps don't have this layout, and it's cuz it just doesn't go with the meta we are used to. There could be some glaring imbalances that we are failing to see or it might be more balanced than we thought.

One thing I was thinking about is what Freakling had said before and that in the ZvT matchup, it seems like mutalisks will be pretty strong here. Here there are 4 places to defend instead of 3 like most maps.
Maybe this will offset any badly placed sunks? Also, zerg will then be able to hold their ramps, especially with lurks.

-9 o' clock ramp has been changed to give slightly more room for the expo and to resemble more its counterparts.
-Tanking from the mains to the low ground thirds has been taken care of with unwalkable tiles. Also tanking around other parts of the map.
-Blue's main space increased a bit.
-Fixed some terrain bugs from my terrible tile editing.
-Slightly more decoration, doodads, tile editing.

-No balance changes, just a bunch of decoration.

Things left to do unless anything I don't foresee comes up:

-Wallins for high ground mains and naturals.
-Adjusting creep area.
-Tank holes around the map.
-More decoration.
-Resource testing (includes unwalkable tiles for gases).
modified by JungleTerrain
This is going to be so cool when its finished. Its already very exciting.
Just wanted to show some wallins for terrans.

Goal for mains: 1rax 2depots, zealot tight but not marine tight. Not ling tight.

The natural being walled with a barracks won't be an early game scenario since terran needs their barracks in-base and the natural does not defend the main at all, but I can see terran eventually walling off their nat. I can see protoss doing the same.

If the terran plays like this, I feel the game will get boring, but I also think they will have a hard time getting out.

^Above shows Buildability

^Above shows Walkability

Here is a closer look at each one, in an album (hopefully it works):

modified by JungleTerrain

-Covered most, if not all, tankholes.
-Wallins, shown above in more detail.
-More decoration.

Let me know if you see anything that needs to be tweaked, otherwise, this map is close to being done.

Still need to do resources.

I am open to big balance edits once testing/games on map have happened, other than that, not really.
Seeing maps like this really makes me want to be half-decent at the game.

How's the pathing through the bridge/ramp up to the base at the 9 o clock? Looks just a tad cramped.
Hhmm what you mean? It is pretty similar to its counterparts, no?
The angle just looks a bit tough for units to navigate. If it works fine in-game then it's not a problem, just looks a tad awkward from the map view.
gonna hijack this thread just to post this:

looks like starcraft alpha used to have 8 cliff directions (cardinal and diagonal) instead of the 4 of the release version - would've been really interesting to see, and probably would have solved a lot of the isometric symmetry difficulties
I wonder why they took that out.
I'd also have liked to have some of those blends. The plating they use in the space platform terrain looks much better than the final version...

Also: Weird Science Vessel legs??!!?
Forget about the science vessel, look at that Goliath on top of the terrain...

What is a science vessel suppose to do with 70 health?
That's interesting. Blizzard made weird decisions back then (well I guess they still do lol)

-Doodad decoration done

I started to do some resource testing, but I realized I hadn't messed with the geysers yet as Freak said earlier.

@Freakling: When you say put unwalkable tiles below the geyser to fix the far spawn you mean the tile below the geyser (as in what's in the resource guide on the side -->)

And I'm trying to get these maps done but I am sooo busy right now :(
Like this: (T = town hall, G = geyser, x = unwalkable tile [only needs to be unwalkable enough to prevent workers from respawning at bottom]).


These are also good:


(Comsat does not get in the way that much, but a bit worse for other races)


(needs a depot or turret where the Ds are for Terran to speed up mining with comsat)


(comsat really gets in the way, but good for other races).

Don't hurry, I am busy too, not finishing anything until next month...
modified by Freakling
Ive finally been looking at this in game properly.
Looking really good.
Mainly thinking about the choke still. Some zergs will place a hat on the low ground and so will be able to sunk up no problem. Others might place a sunk on the high ground at the nat. This would still need a sunk on the highground in the main though, so would still need to be a 3 hat build.

If you really want to make 2 hat viable, then the neutral creep colonies will be needed.
The ideal set up would be if zerg could place 2 creep colonies at once on the neutral creep side by side. And for these 2 colonies to be decently protected by the terrain. An 8 to 10 tile wide choke further out would be good.
As it stands, the Top spawn choke is good in this regard. The other 2 spawns need to be more similar to the Top choke.

With the Top choke though, I would change it so that the gateway is on the right, and the forge goes on the left. Both buildings go tight to the cliff, and have the 1 tile gap in the middle between them. To do this you would have to move the neutral creep a bit.

With the Left choke, Id move the neutral creep down quite a lot, so that it is touching the edge of where the protoss wall in goes. And then make more of a choke (secondary further out choke) to protect the zerg who places 2 sunkens.

With the Right choke, you cant put 2 sunkens next to each other vertically straight away.

It might be your thinking that the zerg has to make 1 creep colony early on, wait for the creep to spread and then make his sunken wall further back. This is a bit annoying, and obviously would weaken zerg somewhat. Its kind of acceptable because the map is hard to defend against muta for terran so zerg can still keep up probably.
But in my opinion, if you can make it so that zerg can immediately place 2 creep colonies in decent position to hold off mnm attacks then that would be preferable.
Thanks for the feedback

Not much thinking went into being able to place 1 or 2 sunks in a line honestly. I have given preference over to protoss in this regard, and terrans just have it easy in general.

I feel like with this set up I can't really get a perfect balance. Either protoss will be favored or the zerg or the terran in a particular matchup.

I'm super busy right now so I will get back to this later and will address these issues when I can. My gut feeling and my laziness is telling me to just keep it as is and let some playtesting determine what I do next. I'll probably implement some of your suggestions about the creep and sunk placements tho...
I think you can make it so two sunkens can be placed (maybe a bit forward) and Protoss still has the space for a comfortable wallin with plenty of cannons against Hydra breaks.

On the other hand, Colosseum is basically fine with just room for one sunken, and it does not even come with an easily blocked ramp into the main.
26th February 2017
Ive gone and had a shot at it for you. Ive been careful to keep it as similar to current as possible.

Uploaded to Observer slot.
Oh cool :) Ill take a look when I have some time lol
Some changes:

-Took Jukado's version and reuploaded as the melee version.
-I added unwalkable tiles under the 12 and 1's gases so as to get better mining results. I haven't tried them out in-game though.
-Picture shows the above mentioned change (squint to see it).

Probably will move on to testing resources soon
Am I the only one that uses the isometric edges for rocky ground?
it doesnt make too much of a difference honestly. some of the uglier ones can be subtiled out
Ah glad you liked.

I do CrystalDrag.
modified by Jukado
All my rocky ground is copy pasted or tile edited to have smooth edges (i.e. no cut stones) :D
Im too lazy to do that
Was doing some resource testing and interestingly enough, red and blue have similar gas mining rates in the main, but Teal had a discrepancy of 100 gas with the other two after 1500 gas being mined.

After 2000 gas being mined, the difference grew to 300. What's a solution to this? Maybe I can move the geyser to the left and right a bit and see if I can come up with a better placement? That's a pretty significant difference in my opinion.

Note: I'm using a bit updated version I have, not the one on the website.
modified by JungleTerrain
Wow, that is a significant difference and should not be! Are you noticing aberrant worker behaviour? Normally in that position this is caused by workers going diagonally to the left on the way back to the townhall instead of just straight down. One solution (like on top right CB) is to move the geyser one or two tiles to the left, but that usually still yields you a slightly worse mining rate than the optimum.
As it is a main, moving all resources one or two tiles in some direction is also an option.
However, as I have figured out by now, your best bet for a clear and elegant solution that does not require you to make any foul compromises with the actual resource positions is to make two or three little edits to some cliff edges around the map or add some decorative unbuildable doodads at inconspicuous spots, then test again, untill the bug (and all other serious bugs you encounter that cannot really be fixed otherwise) is gone. If you discover that some specific edit did more harm than good, just undo and try something else. It may sound weird and cumbersome (it is!), but I actually found that it did not really take me noticeably longer to debug my resources this way on Reap the Storm and Frogstar than doing it the "classical" way of just jumbling around the resources woud have done, but I got much cleaner results with almost no compromising on mineral line setups and expansion positions.
Ok I will try that Freak, thanks.

Yeah its really weird because the paths the workers were taking to the gas were still direct, not diagonal. But they seemed a bit "slower". I'll test again and see if I even tested it right... It seemed weird to me too.
Ok, so I got the mains to mine at almost the exact same rates. After about 3000 gas mined they were nearly identical. I changed a tile at the top natural choke and this seemed to have solved the problem.

The natural expansion's gases definitely vary in mining rates, but I don't think I will move them.

I guess all I need to do now is test mineral gathering and look for any other unusually terrible gas mining in the other bases. Other than that, this map is done.

*** I haven't uploaded the newest version yet.
Get all mining rates up to at least 270gas/minute on 3 workers. It's all you can really do without asymmetrical gas positions.
Okay, here are the gas mining rates in a visual. I will do minerals now.

The numbers correspond with gas per minute on 3 workers

modified by JungleTerrain
Accurate balancing & Brilliant design!!

Any solutions to far Zerg 3rd gas??
modified by _deM1stR
Thanks _deM1stR :)

I'd say the constant feedback has really helped make this map better than when I first started with it.
I'd say the solution is that Zerg usually are best at taking a far 3rd gas.
I think the thirds for zerg are fine as it is... I guess I can be wrong though. If it comes down to it I could always shrink the low ground thirds' choke by a pylon-width

-UMS settings now shows map preview.
-Resource testing done with all 3 races.
-Moved some mineral lines or made new ones as a result.

The top left ground third base was so annoying. I had to switch that mineral line a few times. I changed the mineral formations for the 3 mains.

Top right high ground 3rd (1 o' clock) has a small hiccup in worker behavior for 1 patch. I didn't think it was bad enough to warrant a change of the formation.

I guess this map is done, unless anyone brings up anything I don't expect.

I will set the version to 1.0 if nothing else comes up.

I was thinking I could submit this to the ASL submission page. I mean why not?

^this is why I have progressed to changing the overall pathing map instead of specific mineral formations. Instead of testing the worst formations for hours, juggling around minerals and hoping to find something which is not too broken I'd rather spend the same time to try and get optimal results while at the same time adding some nice decorative details...

I predict that the geyser at the 6 o'clock base mines very badly now. Might be as bad 250g/gmin or less...

And yes, you should submit this.
Why would it be 250g/min? I haven't changed anything, it should still be 272 +/- 8

Okay. I retested just the 6 o clock.

Z: 272
T: 248
P: 280

Is terran supposed to be that bad?

2nd Edit:

I will redo my gas mining tests with all 3 races... will post tomorrow.
modified by JungleTerrain
The problem is that workers at geysers below the resource depot will respawn at the top left corner, meaning they have to move diagonally back to the resource depot, which takes a lot longer. Terefor you should not offset bottom geysers to the left (1 to three tiles to the right has generally little effect).
Protoss is possibly better because Assimilators are narrower, so the spawn offset is less. However, Zerg should be worse then, but maybe SCV just travel less efficiently in this case...
Gas mining rates for each race

Black number indicates amount of gas mined after 5 in-game minutes.

Reddish number indicates amount of gas mined after 1 in-game minute on average.


Terran has the most variability. They have the best rates (308.8 per min) and the worst (246.4 per min).

Zerg has the least variation. Range is 272 to 305.6.

Protoss has some good gas mining rates on all poisitions except the 12, 1 and 2 o'clock positions, in which they have very low rates.

modified by JungleTerrain
I am surprised that the E natural is so bad for terran too. Let me have a look how it looks in-game.

EDIT: The reason the 1 o'clock high ground 3rd is so slow for Protoss is that Probes respawn very low and move diagonally. The unwalkable doodad you put below simply does not extend far enough to the left. Make the unwalkable area wider and look if Probes still move diagonally (this might be a pthfinding bug on top of the bad respawn). This should boost mining rates for the other races too.
The two o'clock low ground 3rd could also be sped up for all races by simply adding unwalkable tiles below the geyser, as for the 12 and 1 o'clock positions. Just look at the 12 o'clock position for proof how effectively this can boost mining rates if done right.

I don't think you can do much about SCVs just being slow for below-the-resource-depot positions. Moving all geysers to be at least directly below the resource depot would give you a small boost, but probably not much in this case. You could easily use righ-hand-side positions for the gas at 5 and 6 o'clock, though (just like 12,1,2 o'clock).
You don't need to be so overly afraid to put unwalkable tiles below a geyser, by the way. Just don't put them right below the centre (this blocks Drones from building, as they have to move there first) or make the very top left subtile unbuildable (only way to make the whole geyser unbuildable). This can avoid the blockiness you have right now with the unwalkable stuff at 12 and 1 o'clock.
Placing minerals partially on unwalkable or unbuildable ground is mostly unproblematic as well, by the way. Just make sure that the subtile directly right and below (rounded up pixel coordinates) of the collision box centre (i.e. of the two tiles they cover ; in other words, subtile (0,2) of the right tile) is walkable, otherwise Workers will not mine from it.

Which race have you done your initial mining test with? I assume is Zerg. Judging from those results I would definitely suggest to make the 6:30 a right-hand-side gas position.
You could even make it a left-hand-side position, I suppose (careful with tank range from the adjacent main) and the 2 o'clock a top position.
modified by Freakling
Yes the initial tests were done with zerg. Thanks for the input I will make some changes and share.

-Added unwalkable tiles under 2 o'clock gas.
-Extended unwalkable tiles under 1 o'clock gas slightly.
-Switched 5 and 6 o'clock to have their gas on the right side.


Gas mining rates

Note: I only tested positions 12, 1, 2, 5, and 6 o'clock. I did not touch 4 o'clock (Blue's natural) at all.

Terran (no comsat)
Position..............Gas per minute

Terran (with comsat)



At the positions I made changes at, Terran has improved greatly in mining rates.
Zerg has stayed almost the same.
Protoss has gotten better only at position 2 o'clock and got worse at positions 5 and 6 o'clock.

I hate protoss -_-

Interestingly, some of the right gas positions with unwalkable tiles under the gas make the protoss probes spawn under the gas, so they have to take a ridiculous route. But after 1 or 2 orbits, this auto corrects itself and the problem doesn't arise again.
HOWEVER, I had a weird thing happen in that in one of the games where I was testing Protoss, at the 6 o'clock position, the scenario I described above happened, and it did not correct itself until about 2 minutes later. What ended up happening is that the replay ended up corrupted afterwards. After other tries, I could not recreate this effect again and the probes autocorrected after about 1-2 orbits like the other times.

Is this why replays get corrupted? A behavior occurs that the game engine cannot recreate again inside a replay?

Note: the 5 o'clock gas for Protoss has a weird behavior in which they dip down a little after spawning from the geyser and then they head for the nexus. Their route looks a bit like an 'L' shape flipped 90 degrees counterclockwise.

EDIT: Forgot to mention. I'm probably just going to put geysers on top for 1 and possibly 2 o'clock.

Also I was thinking about just putting 4 o'clock (Blue's natural) gas on the left instead of bottom. Is this a good idea? It will be a bit positionally imbalanced but it will greatly increase the mining rate.
modified by JungleTerrain
Sorry, no time, so telegram style:

1 o'clock path still diagonal?

if spawn right below, extend unwalkable to right, problem caused by worker congestion blocking proper exit at left when all sent gathering at once.

Protoss somewhat worse with right-side pos. because of narrow Assim (but compensates for bottom left pos. a bit).

Consider Zerg most critical to balance, because of low saturation (4 gas mine seldom economical)


-1 o'clock changed to top gas position.
-2 o'clock changed to top gas position.
-4 o'clock (blue's natural) to left gas position.
-Also changed a mineral patch at 4 o'clock to make town hall position unambiguous.

Mining rates:




Basically these 3 positions are around 300 gas/min now.

4 o'clock natural change could be problematic, because it makes good turret coverage of the natural harder (although at th point that mutas hit, Terrans usually haven't taken their 2nd gas yet, so that's probably a minor point) and the geyser can be reached from the low ground now (and probably not just by tanks.
Moving the geyser a few tile down should be basically okay, though, so maybe you can find a position which is not flush left but gives you similar mining rates to the other naturals (you only need to match ~270 for the 12 o'clock, so I think you have rather a lot of leeway).
Everything else is really good now.

Blue's natural gas moved 2 tiles down.

Mining Rates in gas/min.



Contrary to the picture, the map file does not have a starting location at Blue's natural expansion.

Also, distances from main entrance to entrance are:

11 to 7: 30 seconds
7 to 3: 31 seconds
3 to 11: 31 seconds
modified by JungleTerrain
Looks good. Are you going to post it on Afreeca now?
Ima write the application in English I guess and then see if somebody who knows Korean can help me translate it
depending on how long, might be able to help.. why dont you post here?
I just posted asked lemmata for help. He promptly gave me the translations.
I went to somewhat satirical creativity with my "map style" descriptors. He promptly answered:

"[...] I think this is okay because they don't know what their own descriptions mean either."

lol thats funny
No changes, just had to get rid of the observer version
Hopefully I didn't mess up... Here's the Afreeca Submission page

Translation by Lemmata. Thanks to him.

Lol... I thought I was using the edit button. Instead I submitted it twice :(
modified by JungleTerrain
Interesting observation (I don't think there is any spot in particular on this map where it really matters): When using High Ruins doodad tiles for stuff like cliff blends and the like, it is better to use normal Ruins tiles for the fully unwalkable parts. Because High Ruins have vision blocking flags not set they tend to cause lots of cliff vision. Using the Ruins doodad tiles instead gives exactly the same vision as a normal cliff, on the other hand.

I added this to my tile flag bug report list, so who knows, maybe the Blizzard devs actually fix the missing flags, but if not, its nice to have this workaround!
modified by Freakling
Lots of cliff vision and vision blocking flags? So the tiles work similarly to the ones crystal used in kiseyras for the vision blocking effect?
Well, yes.
The exact way that it works is the following:
The responsible flags are actually minitile flags.
However, a single minitile with set flag suffices to make the whole tile vision blocking (in comparison, the cut-off for tiles to be considered high ground in vision calculations is 12 minitiles! ; credit to S.I. for figuring out the numbers and rewriting the vision algorithm for SCMDraft).
Now, the important part in this case is that most Ruins doodads (except for the ones you wouldn't expect to block vision in the first place, like the circular emblem-like one and the ones depicting holes in the ground) have vision blocking flags set for most of their tiles whereas High Ruins ones have not (which is inconsistent, unexpected and illogical, which is why I classified these as bugs and added them, to the list). Now with the above-mentioned cut-off values for vision calculations, the way most cliffs work out is that their bottom most row is considered lower ground and the two rows above that higher ground. This means that using vision blocking tiles for the second row recreates consistent cliff vision for cliffs made from doodad tiles.

The tiles used in Kiseyras are not just vision blocking but also fully walkable (so not what you'd use for cliffs). Interestingly, we have these tiles thanks to only a single set minitile flag! The same is true for the vision blocking tiles in Ash World terrain, which I used on Frogstar, among others.
The completely missing flags for High Ruins doodads are of course also the reason for the lack of vision blocker for high ground Jungle.
modified by Freakling
Another ver nice map!

I have a weakness for 3# maps ;D
You should change these because they constrict the choke:
oh yeah. That is a quick fix. I'll get to it when I can
modified by JungleTerrain
obs dl does not work!

Version 1.0 --> 1.1

-Changed mineral formations at blue and teal naturals
-Fixed constricted choke at bottom bridge
-Removed some unbuildable tiles at top mineral only

And obs doesn't work?
I didn't change it at all though.

Melee --> version 1.1
Obs --> should still be 1.0
Why have you changed the formations?
I retested all the mining and found some bugs
Double comment
modified by JungleTerrain
This map played 910's ASL map test streaming in AF.
Could you explain a bit what exactly that means?

Who is 910? Just some random guy testing maps? Or some one with some official say in it?

EDIT: Oh, this guy? Interesting.

Interesting statistics on my map packs on mediafire:
Frogstar World B: so far 22 DLs and quickly climbing
Inner Coven: 15 DLs so far and rising
Reap the Storm: 1 DL, and I know that that's Lemmata whom I sent the links beforehand...

I guess Frogstar and Coven just have more WTF factor?

EDIT: Will be interesting how Atlantis and In the Way of an Eddy are perceived. Not much WTF factor, but certainly some design that catches the eye.
I think I'll also upload Beehive. More island maps, and that one actually does not need any updating...
modified by Freakling
Yeah I sent 910 an observer version he requested. I wonder what they think of the map and the weird nat layout. I have a feeling they might ask me to change the nat to a standard one but then again I could be wrong.
Demanding this map have a standard nat would be really missing the point O_o
From what I saw of the game that 910 played (a TvP), the protoss had a hard time. Don't know if it was because the protoss wasn't as good or w/e, but the distance between the mineral only areas made 910's push fast and hard for the protoss to deal with.
Why didn't you send in Eddy? :P
Haven't heard byck fro Lemmata yet...
Congrats for your good news! 910 will not demand to change nat layout. That 'new' layout is the reason that he pick this map :)
(For your information, 910 is one of ASL managers)

+ Here are some my suggestions.

1. I think Starting locations' mineral formations should be more safe from mutalisk. Maybe you can refer to Demian's formation.
And also, gas at Blue's nat should be move to down. 2~3 of Turrets can't defend both mineral and gas. It requires more turret to blue's nat, compare with red and teal's.
It is more important than gathering rate gaps.

2. Teal is more exposed to air units (like Arbiter, shuttle, Dropship, Overload etc). Teal terran is hard to defend recall, compare with Red and Blue.

3. Visually, Blue has smallest buildable area. Is that right? If so, you can reduce size of Red and Blue's area.

P.S. And sry for my poor English...
modified by LatiAs
1. Main formations cannot be made safe from mutalisks easily because the SW main is not against a map edge. That is why the natural mineral lines are made safer by putting them against the edge of the map instead.

2. Because you can go around over the water at the bottom? Because otherwise it looks pretty equal in terms of Turret parameter length. I guess making an outcrop that allows for turrets to be build closer to the edge would be possible. More significant changes would be hard due to the symmetry/layout.

3. Does look pretty equal to me. Maybe red is a bit bigger and teal might in fact be hardest to build in, due to the lack of a flush edge against a map border. Is there anything in particular some one complained about (like the argument about good Factory setups on Reap the Storm)? Just eyeballing it is not very instructive.
1. That's why pros dont like Aztec or Icarus.
See Larva's stream. He told same thing about this map. Terran is forced so many turrets. I think you are very underestimating progamer's Mutalisk control.
And because this map is for 3 players, Zerg can get another main and it's nat easily, which terran cant. Or, is distance between mains short? Thats not either.
Means, there is no specific disadvantage for zerg.
Is there particular reason for making main resources dangerous?

2+3. I know what you are about - bottom water. But in my opinion, main's area must be reduced. Right now, Terran has no advantages against protoss.
- 3 players map - protoss can get another main
- Very far from 3rd gas base
- Cant defend recall, with large main area
- Open-type center
These are more hard problem than Aztec witch is known as killing-terran map.

To sum up, main is too big for no reason. You know CB's main size. It doesnt need large area.
modified by LatiAs
1. Because it would be hard to make bottom left (teal) main not dangerous, because it is not touching the edge of the map. It wold be possible to move the Starting Location and resources all the way to the left, I guess... That would make the SL position within the main rather weird, though. If it is a specific solution you have in mind, maybe you could draw a sketch or do a quick and dirty edit yourself to show how you would change it.

It is also weird that there is the permanent T>Z discussion looming around while at the same time Terrans panic over every instance of stronger Muta harassment.

Likewise it is weird that they complain about vertical mineral lines in maps like Aztec or Icarus, but don't accept horizontal mineral lines in mains either, even though it is perfectly possible to make them easy to split to (via moving worker spawns and good formations) without a need to move the screen (and either way we are talking about a little inconvenience during the first two seconds of the game vs. a significant imbalance that lasts until the main is mined out).

2/3. Circuit Breaker has equally big mains. Maybe they have less parameter because they are in the corners, but that is simply not doable with a 3-player map. 2/3 player maps also need sufficiently large mains to fit in all the tech, as players cannot necessarily get another main for more building space. Terrans need a lot of building space for all their tech (let's say 12 facts, 20 depots plus additional tech).
In fact, you can directly switch between this map's image and Demian's and see that there is hardly a difference in size.

The far away 3rd is kind of an inherent disadvantage of the layout. A geyser (maybe reduced) could be added to the mineral only, or a blocked backdoor from the nat to the high ground 3rd... (Again I get reminded how I designed Hazard Black and how it converged towards its current state)

Maybe just tightening the centre in some places would be a good way to go.
Here is video of Larva's stream where he looks over the maps.
LatiAs, which version of Demian are you referring to when you say to refer to it? The latest one? (2.01 or something?)

The original reason I've made the main resources more dangerous than normal is because the natural resources are against the edge of the map on this map, so you cannot harass them as easily. If I made mains safer, won't it be difficult to muta harass the main AND the nat?

I can move Blue's natural gas down, however this will be the effect on gas rates, so players should know.

Blue's natural gas
Gas Per Minute on 3 workers

So you recommend just reducing Teal's and Red's base size?

I think a quick drawing or picture showing what you mean practically would also be the best way to convey what you are thinking.

I am aware that Blue's base might be smaller...

I am not opposed to making changes.

modified by JungleTerrain
I wish I understood some Korean...

Is he really testing the mining on Frogstar @_@... With "black sheep wall" enabled...

I concede that 7 o'clock could have better Protoss wallins. 11 o'clock is just his failing to find one of the good ones, though...
modified by Freakling
I added the observer version for 1.1, now both links should work.
I mean 2.01. Moving teal's main minerals to left side, and red's to top side.
As I told, right now zerg dont have amy disadvantage

Compare with 'normal' maps(FS, or CB), terran bionic units can't move main-to-nat easily.
Long distance between two resources, and small two ramps which mutals can attack easily.
I think there is no problem to make resources safer than now.

And blue's nat gas, yes. Plz move to down.
Rates of danger from air units is more important than gas rates, I think.

Last, yes I recommand reducing Red and teal's main size. Maybe refering to Neo MoonGlaive will be a little help.
modified by LatiAs
I want all people use one language.
Lol Noah2nd I agree! The language barrier is so annoying :(

Ok I will make some changes and upload here.
Rough Draft, NOT final.

Version 1.11

-Teal main moved left, resources moved, main size reduced overall (I think).
-Red main resources moved to top.
-Red main size reduced on the left and bottom side.
-Blue Natural gas moved down.


LatiAs, you didn't say anything about Blue's main minerals, but should I move them against the edge too?

Teal's main has been changed a lot. How does it look for muta harass/ recall area?

I thought putting Teal more in the corner would help against drops/harass.

Uzi Sara

modified by JungleTerrain
Teal looks a bit weird now, but with a few adjustments here and there is seems workable.

I take altered worker spawns for red as a given...
In the interest of consistency blue's minerals should also be against the corner with gas on top now...

Why is the image stretched out so weird?

We should start streaming live mapping sessions while teaching each other languages or something...
modified by Freakling
Lol Freakling. My computer is old and sucks at streaming otherwise I probably would. Maybe I could get it to work somehow.

Yeah its really rough. The weird shape for Teal's main is partly because I want to keep part of it overlooking the mineral only to some degree, since Blue and Red's mains can do this.

Yes I will give red altered worker spawns (I hope pros won't complain).

I don't know why the image is stretched... The width and length are both 768 px.
modified by JungleTerrain
I think should be fix eveness all only min - main location and attack arrange.
It must be difficult to modify..
Good fix. Just plz move Blue's main mineral right side.

I agree to Noah2nd's opinion, but... I don't have any great idea for correct that problem.

If you want solve this problem, move more down Teal's main and nat, same location with Demian's 7'o.
But It will be a big rebuilding...

(In fact, for triangle symmetry, Blue and Teal's ramp should be locate (x,y)=(111,84), (20,97), If Red's ramp is fiducial point)

modified by LatiAs
For the mineral only, If you move blues geyser to the top you might get some room for a bit of clutter on that side, with some overall retweeking of the main.

For the other locations you could just rotate the mineral onlie around a bit and push them into the clutter. It's probably more about finding lots of small adjustments than having one big changing idea.
Only-min delete is easy plan. Haha XD
Sorry.. Joke..
LOL I was thinking the same Noah2nd XD

Anyways... I'll see what I can come up with, will post tomorrow hopefully.
910 is looking forward to new version of this map.
Can you send him updated file as soon as possible? If you can, plz mail to him by today or tommorow.

Probably, every work should be finished before sunday for using at league.
modified by LatiAs
Seriously? They don't even consider a good map worth some prize money but demand extensive updates be done with a few days notice? I grant them possibly complete ignorance as to the amount of work required to actually make a top quality map, but still. Do they think we have no jobs/studies to do?

The overall lack of public information, intransparency of the selection process and lack of open and direct discussion and communication channels is also something to be improved.
Version 1.12

-Teal main changed a bit.
-Added Blue main clutter behind mineral only.
-Blue main base size increased a bit.
-Changed naturals a bit so they are more similar in building space for turrets.
-Red and Teal's mineral only expansion moved closer to the mains so they can be harassed more easily.

Any last minute suggestions before I start debugging and give it to 910?
Can't think of anything right now.

I just feel with you that you have to completely debug everything all over again :(
Yeah, well... If you look at my first post you can see some of my initial concerns coming back to bite me in the butt now lol. But it was the first serious map I had made in like 3-4 years. Anyways I'm happy that it is at least being considered for the ASL.

I will finalize this to 1.2 in the morning, debugged.
NICE! Good job. I really really want to see this map in ASL.
Is there something like an official (or semi-official) short list of maps being considered?
modified by Freakling
On 910 and Larva's stream you could see at least 3 in their map folders. You could check it again in the YouTube videos maybe... Crossing Field, Uzi Sara, Frogstar World B. And there are some with Korean names.

Other than that, I have no idea where to even find that info out :0
modified by JungleTerrain
I gave the author of Crossing Fields a link to the new ScmDraft with a warning that his ramps have terrain level bugs, just to make sure.

Somehow that does not surprise me...

Version 1.1 --> Version 1.2

Versions 1.11 and 1.12 were WIP, so I didn't release them.

-Small changes to decoration.
-Shifted Main resources for Red and Teal.
-Reworked Blue's choke a bit.
-Filled all tank holes again.
-Teal's main shape changed a bit.
-Tested resources.
-Moved some mineral patches, not entire formations.
-In-game text in UMS mode changed so it can be presented to ASL.
-Modified description.
-Fog of War is back in both melee and observer versions in UMS mode.

Not much changed overall, just small things.
modified by JungleTerrain
Two things:

Is the bottom left main geyser off-centre from the SL intentionally?

This is not tight:

You should post the update on the ASL page as well.
modified by Freakling
Yeah the main geyser is offset to the left, the mining rates are still around 300 per minute for each race.

And why wouldn't you just build the hatchery on the bottom?
1. But is the centre position bugged? Otherwise it should be ever so slightly faster...

2. Zerg walling 101: Because Evo/Den is only tight below Hatch (or Den to either side or Evo to the right-hand-side of the Hatch).
I will check the mining rates again, but they were almost identical last time I checked (with the same race there was at most only an 8 gas difference between each position after 2000 gas mined). I would need to check individual mining rates for each race.

I felt the gas was really in the way to the ramp and wanted to move it out of the way a bit.

And I don't play Zerg so I don't know their wallins. Although I've always thought that Zerg wallins were functional as long as they served to both funnel or wall-off. Seems like protoss is the race that really needs unit-tight walls. Zerg also has it easier in terms of placing units (like lings) to make it tight.

I will probably add this change into the next version I suppose.
You should also add a third unwalkable tile below the geyser at 6:30. Workers tend to respawn behind (at least when mining with 4).

Consider making the Mineral formations in the N main denser, so worker migration distances aren't longer for the horizontal formation. Another problem is that right now there are only two very fast (front line, straight worker path) minerals to split to (you could argue that this is mitigated by a top split with altered worker spawn actually being slightly faster than a normal split, but the other starting locations both have three very fast patches where worker can resources as fast as possible.
I changed the north main formation (it was "denser") because one or two of the patches had a weird route that persisted.
Red's valley-path is 8 grids, while Blue and Teal are 5 grids (which can be blocked by 1 barrack and 1 supply)

I think Blue and Teal's should be 6~7 grids.
Blue's and Teal's cokes are 6 tiles, in fact. All chokes can be walled with rax, 2 depots for Terran (albeit with Marines spawning outside for Red). Protoss can wall each choke with Forge, Gate and one tile gap (2 Zealot block) on all chokes. Red's choke is noticeably wider without a wall-in though.

EDIT: I just realized it does not really act as intended, though. Underlines the importance to consider all kinds of wallins players might try (debug/show unit collision sizes is as always a map makers best friend – And also a player's, if they don't consider at beyond them to ever open up a map in the editor):

Right (Blue):
Terran can do this (Ling tight):

You probably added that cliff edge on the right to allow for a tight Forge-Gate wall against the top. If you want to preserve that possibility, you could just do something like this:

Left (Teal):
Terran can in theory do something similar:

Obviously, they'd have to destroy the colony first and it's still not Ling-tight (but Zeal-tight) on top right now, due to the issue with the doodad I already pointed out.

You could just cut away the cliff edge at the bottom by one tile:

modified by Freakling
I mainly took into account Protoss wallins for PvZ, and made sure they could make forge-gate with 2 zealots to be ling tight. I'll look over the chokes and the other suggestions from above in a bit
modified by JungleTerrain
Ok, I just got back from a trip and I didn't have access to my map making tools out there...

I've made some small changes, calling it version 1.21.

Anyways, the chokes to the bases have been altered a bit. I used collision boxes to check wallins, I hope things are alright...

Top choke has not been changed much.
Left choke is now 6 tiles, and hatchery is zealot tight at top.
Right choke is now 6 tiles, and

No chokes can be walled by Terran with just 1rax1supply.

Added an unwalkable tile under geyser at 630 like Freakling said.

Red's formation changed to be better for splits and is also more compact.

I have not tested mining, except for red's main. I will upload once I'm done.
I have two news for you, one slightly bad one – and one absolutely fantastic one.

So first the bad:
You have a ramp vortex:

Now the incredible, fantastic, ingenious one: Here's how I found it:

The new pathfinding nodes and regions feature for SCMDraft is live, and you should defintely get it!
What causes ramp vortices (or at least its a good working model with strong predicitive power) are ramps (or other tight chokes) that are part of fairly small regions, so the region node ends up on a semi-walkable tile (mark how the node is exactly where the units get stuck). So just play around with some terrain edges a bit till that region changes and the node moves to a fully walkable tile.
modified by Freakling
Whoa that is cool!

I actually noticed some weird behavior around that ramp but I didn't think to address it. So that's what that picture on TL was that SI put up! That's gnarly stuff.

So basically where those lines meet up, that point needs to be on a walkable tile? Every region has 1 point it seems.

And can this be used for resource testing? (Am on my phone)
What I think how it works is:
When a unit gets stuck on unwalkable terrain (i.e. when its collision box overlaps), the engine tries to unstick it by giving it a forced movement order to the node of nearest/adjacent walkable region. This is a reasonable course of action 99% of the time, but if the node is the very location where the unit is stuck at...

I'll have to study the OpenBW code more closely at some point to confirm, but so far this has proven 100% reliable in predicting ramp vortices (also found one on Atlantis and three! on Oxide...). There are some instances (like the one plaguing every single reverse ramp on the earlier versions of Cross Game) which I haven't figured out yet, though...

EDIT: Actually, the ones on Cross Game turn out to be a textbook example of this: A single, semi-walkable low ground tile on a ramp, completely surrounded by high ground, forms it's own 1x1 region that units then get stuck on. As all the ramps were made up tis way, they all ended up having a ramp vortex.
modified by Freakling
If a single green line converges on a tile that has some measure of unwalkability?

The famous 12'o clock left ramp on FS has tis.

Its been a while, so I forgot changes from 2.22 (TLFC) -> 2.23(Afreeca)...
modified by CrystalDrag
I looked in my newest version of this map (1.21), and I guess I have solved the ramp vortex in that version without knowing it. It is not the same as the one in the picture here above. I need to upload it :O

EDIT: AND what you thought was happening, the BUTTERFLY EFFECT, Freakling, has been absolutely confirmed. When I make one change somewhere, there is a potential for huge parts of the pathfinding region map to be affected as well. Sometimes almost ALL the paths change with 1 minor change somewhere else.
modified by JungleTerrain
@Crystal: The number of lines converging in a node has nothing to do with it.
Regions touching each other at at least one corner or edge are considered adjacent and linked to each other (probably via pointer, I haven't studied the code in depth yet).
The region that causes the bug on FS has two walkable and two unwalkable neighbours, hence two green lines (connecting to the walkable neighbours) and two red lines (connecting walkable and unwalkable regions ; unwalkable regions are linked to each other via yellow lines).
Seems this is now officially in the final selection.

Time to finalize it, I guess.
Yep time to finalize...
Version 1.21

-Got rid of ramp vortex at Blue's Main ramp.
-Fixed some mining bugs by changing some path regions.
-Reworked Red's formation to be easier to split, is more concentrated now.
-Teal and Blue's chokes changed to be tight and in-line with the top choke.
-Minor decoration.
-Melee and Observer versions should work.
modified by JungleTerrain
Interestingly enough, the mineral line that gave me problems with wandering workers to the back has a node right behind the minerals. It's been fixed but the node and regions remain the same.

Another thing. The bottom base had a situation where the node was behind the town hall, and the mineral patches on the far right were in another region. The line between the nodes was actually behind the town hall, so that if you built a comsat, it would be behind the comsat. What this would translate to was the scv at the far patch to take a path around to the back of the comsat.

I consolidated the region into the one next to it so now it is 1 region for the minerals instead of 2 and the line is more "direct" to where the CC would be. This fixed the problem.

Makes me think these nodes certainly have a "pull" to them. I only got a chance to look at the region implementation code from OpenBW, I haven't found the pathfinding code yet. Also I don't know C++ but I think I understood the jist of what it was doing in region creation (as it was mentioned before).
Can you write a little article about the pathfinding bugs and your debugging process with some pictures? I will make a thread TL soon, to gather all the info about regions/pathfinding and how to read and use them.
Yeah I can do that tonight after I get off work.

I'll send it via TL PM
modified by JungleTerrain
Ok I sent an email to 910, telling him to use version 1.21 instead of 1.2 or else risk having a stack bug appear during a televised game. I included your pictures, Freakling, as evidence. Thanks.

I sent him all the necessary files for the newest version, as well.

Also, I find it mildly annoying that whenever I see the map on someone's stream the sprites are missing. I don't know if they do this on purpose, or if it is the side effect of someone tampering with the map without knowing it. I guess it's not a big deal though.
modified by JungleTerrain
For some reason I am having a hard time replicating the buggy behavior even though I switched the map back to its original state before the fixes. I might be missing something... I'm not sure.

Anyways, the fixes worked. I'm a bit shaky now on whether what I thought is what actually happened.
As for the missing sprites: They better not have any one butchering maps in the background. That can only end badly.
Most importantly, I really hope no one's still propagating the old "reduce sprites to avoid Vakyrie bug" myth, especially after Blizzard has officially solved that bug – that would just mean they are still living in the last decade of map making or so...

EDIT: They already have it changed to 1.21 in the voting thread, although the new picture also doesn't seem to be quite up to date...
modified by Freakling
I reuploaded the Obs version which for some reason didnt have observer triggers for player 3.
How did you contact 910? I feel like I should tell him about the cover bugs on Salamander that seemingly no one is in particular hurry about to get them fixed even though it would take only a minute...
I have his email. Although shouldn't we contact LatiAs instead?
I already posted about it in the map thread on Afreeca...
There is a 1.22 version out. It is a fix for vision. Should be the same fix as the one I just uploaded.
This post is not displayed due to its content
Aren't you going to submit this for GC?
Wasn't going to

... but I guess I can
modified by JungleTerrain
This post is not displayed due to its content

Upload replay for this map
Add your comment:

Because of heavy spam on the map comments, it is needed to be logged in to post. We are sorry that this has to be done because nothing else stops spam bots
random map
Newest updates:
  (4)Nocturne of Sh..
  (2)Lobotomy 2.82
  (3)Ra 0.66
  (2v6)Rich vs Lean
  (4)Maw of the Dee..
  • month 6:
      (2)Butter 2.0b
  • MOTW
  • week 2021.01:
      (3) Lambda 1.0
  • Main Forum
  • New B..(Kroznade)
  • Magna..(addressee)
  • No Fo..(Pension)
  • Share..(Shade)R)
  • Feedback
  • This s..(triller1)
  • Rotati..(triller1)
  • Off Topic
  • scm dr..(addressee)
  • Real L..(Pension)
  • Vetera..(ProTosS4Ev)
  • Starcraft 2
  • announ..(triller1)
  • STARCR..(triller1)
  • Search Forum
  • x  
  • How to make larvae spawn at the bottom right corner  
  • Worker pathing guide - How to debug and balance resour
  • Competition:
  • Innovative Naturals Competition  
  • Tourney Map Pack Aspirant Suggestions  
  • Maps That Need A Remake  
  • Think Quick Map Contest ($100 prize)