For those that say that when a team gets momentum, the game is pretty much decided.

Hah! I'm glad you put this up. I was just wondering if anyone from the game posted on the forums about it. I was on Roughmar's team. I played Erebus and he was TorchBearer, the opposing team was a Regulus and a Rook. Throughout the whole game it was intense, constant back and forth pushing. We had War Score advantage throughout most of the game, however that didn't help much. Twice we pushed to the edge of their base, only to be pushed back. But in the end, victory went to the other side.

 

It was by far the best match I've played so far, and along with Roughmar, made me glad that I picked this game up.

You were playing on Crucible. That's the only reason why the match lasted so long.

Oh c'mon, if they had fun and it was a good game for them, don't put them down because of what map it was on.

 

Translation:  Everyone started playing sloppy and making lots of mistakes, allowing the game to go backwards and forwards.  I would bet my left testicle that for every game where someone makes a come-back, you could find 100 games where a decisive advantage carriers through to the end of the game.  Games where come-backs take place probably don't even make up 1% of the total games played.

wow you replyers are nasty.

They're just jealous.

I played a 3v3 like that, but it was only like 57 mins.  That's when I finally got to learn exactly what the artifact store was for.

It wasn't too much of being sloppy eventually. The tower spam and mines layed out in the last lane made it tough. I still enjoyed it.

87 minutes on crucible, where you can just warp into the enemy base from the middle of the map and cap their portal there?

Something is very VERY wrong with that game, especially after you say that you thought you had won twice during the game.

Its either your judgement of the situation that is flawed, or your ability to push an advantage and finish the game. As for the overall theme of your post where you try to set this as an example on how comebacks are possible and games can wave back and forth..

You are wrong.

For starters, most games end in less than 30 minutes, and quite frankly, my longest game was 50some minutes and even that was a clear case until one guy disconnected giving the other team enough breathing room to come back and turn the game around. (thanks AI)

Furthermore, you are showing an example on a map, where you can bloody teleport into the enemy base and just capture their flag, while playing against a rook who just has no speed to zip around the map being two places at once.

From what i gather, you tried to push past the mines and the towers, which - quite frankly - should not have been a problem for a TB/Erebus team considering your enormous AoE advantage.

In fact with that matchup i think the game should have lasted about 25-30 or so minutes. You go HP build, AoE the rook's towers while they are busy with your creeps and thus prevent the rook from making a garden of them. Push them back up in the corner, then one of you keep them busy there, while the other warps into their base and caplocks their flag once you hit warscore 10. Upgrade to giants and its GG.

to quote my favorite site: thats how it should have ended.

Obviously theres lots of factors i do not know, so i dont assume it is your fault this was not the case, but keep in mind please, that 9 out of 10 times, thats how it will end. One team gets the advantage, pushes the opponent back into the corner and finishes the game. You happened to witness the odd game that just should not have been, which i think is pretty much up there amogst the longest demigod games i've seen listed.

In my experience, if a team gets the advantage, has the skill and aims for it, then that team will win the game. Every time i lose after having an advantage it can usually be traced back to:

- Some of our team going sloppy, not giving 100% compared to the other teams 101% or the other team simply is more skilled.
- Some of our team making a critical mistake (like upgrading early) that just gives the opponent a huge advantage.
- Some of our team disconnecting.
- Our demigod selection just plain sucks and is unable to deal enough damage to cope with the enemy demigods. (these games can sometimes still be won tho if the enemy is not that good or has a similarly poor demigod selection, plus if you got some experience and the willingness to work for the team, you can pick demigods that fit into the team, filling the holes left by the selections of your teammates, be that damage, healing, long range, etc)

Anyway, the only comebacks i've seen were against inferior teams where quite frankly we should have been winning from the start, or teams who just got too distracted by their own advantage and played around too much instead of focusing on finishing the game

 

And then it rains frogs and you can eat heartily.

You're weaving a nice fairy tale there. It's a classic case of "I'll do this, then this, then this and win.", completely forgetting that none of that happens in a vacuum. The RNG, enemy skill, your own skill, and every other variable in between those makes it utterly ludicrous to claim a "winning strat" like you do.

Im not sure right now. Are you trying to flame me, or did you just take your obligation to blend in with the 'dark' side a little too serious?

I'll do this - i described how you can counter a rook tower spam
Then this - i described the obvious outcome of a 2v2 when the rook can not spam his towers
then this - i described what happens if you hold the majority of the flags for long enough in conquest mode
and win - i described the obvious outcome of having warscore 10 when the opponent only has like 7-8 at best

Yea.. i guess we can safely say that i completely ignored the properties of the map and the demigods involved in what i wrote. Sure.  

If it wouldnt be the way i win my games and if it wouldnt be the way my opponents win against me if its not me winning against them, then i would say your post actually makes a sense. Now its just a pathetic attempt to flame me.

You have to get up a lil earlier for that tho. Better luck next time.

Edit: Nvm, haha, I'm mistaken. They should have it so it has no portal flags.

It has portal flags. It's the stupidest map ever.

The only real comebacks I see are when people play sloppy, when it isn't definitively lost (having giants isn't a guaranteed win if we have most of our defenses up and good AoE) or if the "losing" team is mostly comprised of demigods that hit their stride later, while the winning side has DGs that are good from the start (QoT, Tower Rook).

Wow Csebal, really?. That was quite the post. Please, enlighten all of us. Obviously most games end in about 30 mins. It wasnt like that one of my first 5 games played. It was a match out of the norm that we both mutually felt deserved a post. Did we ask for a basic explanation of how games should play out? The match was just different than your average Demigod game. Not a cry of, Oh help me with the game, we don't know how to play.

Well if you'd just made a post called "had a great game," then you'd have gotten no grief from anyone, but instead you titled it in a way which implies you're making a broader statement about game balance, rage quitting, and all other things comeback (or lack thereof) related.

Generally: What he said:

----

Personally: If you do not want people to comment on what you do, then dont bloody post about what you do. I couldnt care less how you waste your time, as long as you do not make forum threads with generalized suggestions in their title based on that.

Talk about thread derail = \

Well atleast I can join you in the fun times of a long crucible game.  Except I top yours at an awesome 105 minutes

Only reason we won is because my team mate (UB) utterly raped TB and Erebus in the end game.

If you read your argument you prove nothing about momentum. It's fairly obvious why.

Mate... I shouldn't even have to write this, but here it goes..

I made this thread to report a game that went great. For all parties envolved. I wasn't trying to create an argument regarding momentum problems, or map issues, or anything else. If I was subconsciously trying to state something, that would probably be that this game, apart from its usual problems, can work and can be fun.

Alas, I didn't see anyone trying to bash the first post regarding the "no problems with latency, no bugs, lots of deaths through finger of god and just plain fun"

I assume everyone around here would usually have these problems. I know I do. For some reason (you're going to tell me that it's the topic, but I refute that, saying that if you read the post itself, it's pretty clear that I'm just trying to say I was pleased, nay, happy even, after that match) you just grabbed the "you suck at playing", "stupid map".

I'm still waiting for the comment "Just plain fun? What do you think this is? A game?"

= \

 

....

If it makes you feel any better, my first online game was over 3 hours long. It was the first time any of us had played online, we knew nothing, and it was 2x UB versus 2x Reg on Crucible. It was relatively close at one point, but they were just artifact-whoring at that point (and I didn't know what an artifact was. Good game me >>) So we ended up losing. But long games can and do happen, though I personally prefer the snowball effect to the slow-death sensation.