TwilightFortress is a dumb map for poopyheads

[Darksquad]

Whose idea was it to make a 2v2 map where not only do you basically have shared bases, but your natural has the same chokepoint as your main? That plus the long distance between your base and the enemy base pretty much guarantees a lack of early agression; this map is made for turtling and massing, period. Why don't we just throw in some destructible rocks while we're at it? It's already clearly for novices as it is.

PS - I love having LT in this game, if there's anything I didn't get enough of in SC1, it's LT, the most-played map ever made.

[Eej]

Big Game Fortress is the best map okay.

[magister]

I don't like this map either, it strikes me as being SC2's nearest current equivalent to Big Game Hunters.

[Megabud]

Whose idea was it to make a 2v2 map where not only do you basically have shared bases, but your natural has the same chokepoint as your main? That plus the long distance between your base and the enemy base pretty much guarantees a lack of early agression; this map is made for turtling and massing, period. Why don't we just throw in some destructible rocks while we're at it? It's already clearly for novices as it is.

PS - I love having LT in this game, if there's anything I didn't get enough of in SC1, it's LT, the most-played map ever made.

oh noes a different map!

remember those island in warcraft3?

[Levio]

Can't you just veto the map????????????????????????

[magister]

I've had it thumbed down for two days, and still get it as a matchup probably 25% of the time.

[Darksquad]

oh noes a different map!

remember those island in warcraft3?
I'm fine with Blizzard making maps like this for customs, but for competitive play this style of map makes no sense, so it shouldn't be present on the ladder.
Can't you just veto the map????????????????????????
Yeah, but that doesn't always work.

[Kootness]

Yeah, I definitely feel like this map doesn't belong in a ranked match. (Though it would be fun for a custom game)

[ghost]

lol you said 'poopyheads'

[Levio]

I've had it thumbed down for two days, and still get it as a matchup probably 25% of the time.

That seems like a poor design philosophy...

The whole point to vetoing is so you don't have to learn strats for ALL the maps, just the ones you prefer.

[Darksquad]

lol you said 'poopyheads'
lol

[Sonanko]

I despise this map and I swear ever since I vetoed it, it is the ONLY map I get in 2s. I have played non-Twilight maps maybe 2 or 3 times out of the last 15. I am absolutely positive that veto is not working.

[Jwray]

If you don't like it, l2macro

[Thesatan]

I don't like this map either, it strikes me as being SC2's nearest current equivalent to Big Game Hunters.

How does it remind you of BGH? BGH was just like Hunters, except with essentially infinite resources. There was also no shared choke among allies either unless they got really lucky and spawned at 11 and 12 or 6 and 7. You also can't choose Twilight Fortress, whereas people always picked BGH to play. I guess you're referring to the turtle+mass part?

[Joneleth]

ITT: QQ from Warcrafters.

Next.

[Krazytrumpet]

It makes for a different paced game than all the rush fests the other maps encourage. I don't really see the problem, except for people who don't know how to play a game past the 7 min mark or so. If that's the case, then at the risk of sounding horribly cliche, "L2P NOOBS"

[Nezdragon]

lol you said 'poopyheads'

[Psiven]

That seems like a poor design philosophy...

The whole point to vetoing is so you don't have to learn strats for ALL the maps, just the ones you prefer.

1) No it isn't. It's so that you can tell the system what maps you don't like to play so that it can avoid matching you on them. If it was so that you didn't have to learn the maps, it would be a full veto and you'd wait indefinitely for a game matching what you want.

2) Matchmaking in beta is tuned to get games fast at the expense of preferred matchups. Expect the only time in retail that you see downvoted maps to be when there's nothing else available.

[magister]

How does it remind you of BGH? BGH was just like Hunters, except with essentially infinite resources. There was also no shared choke among allies either unless they got really lucky and spawned at 11 and 12 or 6 and 7. You also can't choose Twilight Fortress, whereas people always picked BGH to play. I guess you're referring to the turtle+mass part?


It's like BGH because the style of the map encourages turtling in and massing high tech units.

I didn't say it only allows for that, I said encourages it. And alot of people take that encouragement strongly. I prefer more a more aggressive style, with inital expansions you have to make a bit more effort to take and hold.

LOL at the Warcrafters comment. Hate Warcraft III. Love Starcraft the most. And love aggressive play on maps with limited resources where players have to keep expanding like crazy. Not turtling in for the big epic carrier battle.

It's also not a matter of "not being able to play past the seven minute mark". That's nothing more than the strawman, character assassination style of complaint most often made by anti-rushing whiners.

But this is all irrelevant. None of us should (in the long run) end up having to play on any maps we don't like (or at least not most of them). So it's only going to come down to an argument about prefered playstyle. I don't pass judgment negatively on those who prefer this style. More power to you. I just don't like it.

[Krazytrumpet]

Everyone is entitled to their horribly wrong opinions!

[Gcp]

Twilight Fortress is my favorite 2v2 map D: And it never ever pops for me, even when it's the only map along with kulas ravine that isn't down voted...

[Rilgon]

That plus the long distance between your base and the enemy base pretty much guarantees a lack of early agressionHaha, what? Some of my most hilarious losses on Twilight Fortress have come from just that - early aggression when I wasn't expecting it.

Now I come to expect and prepare for early aggression on TF, and distribute some of my own. Have you tried early aggression at all on TF? It does wonders.

[Warpspeedten]

I like the variety to be honest. Having a few maps that force you to play a different game from what you normally do is good for you, like green leafy vegetables and dating an Asian girl. Learn to enjoy the variety!

[Yoichi]

ya i dont like this map... i do try and rush it, but impossible against a terran, usually ends up my rush fails and they counter with even more, or its a mass fest where the biggest army loses, or who takes whose base first, dont like it. i quit as soon as the match begins most the time, the other times i use it to experiment and practice my spell microing

[Minos]

It makes for a different paced game than all the rush fests the other maps encourage. I don't really see the problem, except for people who don't know how to play a game past the 7 min mark or so. If that's the case, then at the risk of sounding horribly cliche, "L2P NOOBS"

/agree

[Kranden]

This maps not so bad, so I just played a game, scouted two zerg saw few lings and was expecting a ling rush, so me and my terran ally D up but little did we realize there were two hatcheries right under the expansions right ouside our base, next time we step out to take a poke around theres 15 spine crawlers outside!!! those 15 soon turn into 20 then 30 then 40 and then more than I can even count!!! Barely a few of my immortals and his siege tanks hold the line just long enough for my void rays to sneak in and win the game with my 4 immortals having a kill count EACH around 20-27!!

[Omniance]

People must keep in mind that Blizzard is not running a tournament ladder here. This is Beta. The primary function of the Ladder system isn't to supply us with knowledge of who is the best player, it's to allow Blizzard the ability to test racial balance across a wide variety of maps, both good and bad, and to help stress test Battle.net. Granted that feedback on what maps should and shouldn't be used in Ladder games once SC2 goes live can be used, it's unlikely that it's Blizzard's primary concern at the moment.

[Vexorian]

There's variety in ladder maps OMG. What were blizz thinking?

[Pdc]

I've had it thumbed down for two days, and still get it as a matchup probably 25% of the time.

It's true :(

[Nuis]

I like it. I'm usually Zerg so I can have my buddy wall off the choke for me lol.

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's just a different map. L2P

All maps can't be LT clones.

[Andross]

ugh, I hate Twilight Fortress...

[Hobbsies]

PS - I love having LT in this game, if there's anything I didn't get enough of in SC1, it's LT, the most-played map ever made.Is this sarcasm?

[Wit]

I'm sorry, but I think this poster is an idiot. This map is a great 2v2 map sorry.

[Ninbyo]

That seems like a poor design philosophy...

The whole point to vetoing is so you don't have to learn strats for ALL the maps, just the ones you prefer.

Well, there are so few maps right now and we're supposed to be testing, I wouldn't be surprised if the veto system is disabled at the moment.

[Nerva]

Whose idea was it to make a 2v2 map where not only do you basically have shared bases, but your natural has the same chokepoint as your main? That plus the long distance between your base and the enemy base pretty much guarantees a lack of early agression; this map is made for turtling and massing, period. Why don't we just throw in some destructible rocks while we're at it? It's already clearly for novices as it is.

PS - I love having LT in this game, if there's anything I didn't get enough of in SC1, it's LT, the most-played map ever made.

i absolutely hate this map. the distance between the bases encourages teching and turtling. 9/10 times on this map, by the time my MM get to the opponents' base, they'll be met by 6 carriers.

[Krazytrumpet]

Then maybe you should learn to employ more than one nub strat?

[Magpie]

The middle distance between the 2 sides should be shortened to add the option of some sort of rush, or early assault.

Right now it basically almost forces to game to be a tech, and forcing teams to do a certain strat i think isn't a good call for a ladder map.

[mike]

This is my favorite map for 2v2. I hope to see a lot more like it in ladder upon release.

[Krazytrumpet]

The middle distance between the 2 sides should be shortened to add the option of some sort of rush, or early assault.

Right now it basically almost forces to game to be a tech, and forcing teams to do a certain strat i think isn't a good call for a ladder map.

And all the other maps almost force the game to be a rush. What's your point?

[Magpie]

And all the other maps almost force the game to be a rush. What's your point?

Somewhat true, but not nearly to the extent that twilight forces it to be a tech, not to mention rushes can be counterable / matched which lead to more developed higher tech games.

[Soli]

I thumbs down every other map and play Terran in 2v2 to abuse how imbalanced this map is. Dual Terran can seal off their 4 bases worth of resources before any sizable rush makes it to them, fast expand and mass whatever they want while scanning for the easiest scouting in the game that cannot be countered. It's fun to abuse for lulz but I agree, this map should not be a ladder map.

[Krazytrumpet]

Wow, you must play against bad players, then. I always lulz when Terran turtle on this map.

[Magpie]

Wow, you must play against bad players, then. I always lulz when Terran turtle on this map.

Or you play bad terran.

The map almost feels like a custom game.

The only fun thing about the map is since people feel so free to tech on it, my partner and i have just decided to do balls to the wall rushes, and have actually won the last few. However, if any of these people actually scouted, or scouted more than once to see i had cancelled the 2 vespene buildings i was pretending to build, these rushes would be basically 100% useless.