210 replies to this topic

[mebby]

Golden Bear, on 06 Mar 2016 - 5:30 PM, said:

We are playing message tag, haha.  i just sent another one as you were over there, LOL.  I am glad you are not peeved off at me.  i enjoy the interaction and debate in this forum with you (without assists).  

Whew... LOL!

[Golden Bear]

mebby, on 06 Mar 2016 - 5:32 PM, said:

Haha... wow.  We keep circling each other and it's getting worse when I'm trying to make it better!  I AGREE with you and I now see your point.  We're on the same page brother!

 

I honestly wasn't getting disgruntled in the least... just trying to discuss the topic to get better insight into your views which I now understand and agree with (at least 90%)!

Group Hug

[mebby]

Golden Bear, on 06 Mar 2016 - 5:34 PM, said:

Group Hug

Hahaha! 

[tlvx]

Golden Bear, on 06 Mar 2016 - 4:46 PM, said:

First players asked for the option in multiplayer rounds to set a particular difficulty that all were forced to use.  Next (as in currently being requested) players are asking for the option to force swing types in multiplayer rounds.  Now comes someone asking for the option to force all in multiplayer rounds to have no bli or putting grids.  

 

In tournaments I have no issue how much people want to slice and dice up the fields into ever thinning pools of players.  But multiplayer games are for those who are not concerned with scores but are there purely for the enjoyment of playing some rounds with some social interaction.  My concern is already duly noted by some others.  That concern is that the multiplayer lobby is already becoming too thinned out in trying to get rounds started.

 

The difficulty settings were the sole intended target to match up the gameplay for those who want such things.  Now a select few want to add swing types and no bli or grids from the players tab to the round set up options.  So what I mused about in another post is not so unlikely an option to be asked for as well.  That option would be gaming or normal mouse enforcement.  After all...a gaming mouse clearly has an advantage with dpi settings over a good ole fashioned 2 button one. 

 

Please keep all the nitpicking and constant worry about anyone possibly having the slightest advantage (gasp) over someone else via the options being asked for now where they belong.  They belong for those who are ultra competitive and enjoy the tournaments.  If no one was this competitive these latest requests would have never seen the light of day.  

 

I repeat, difficulty settings is all that is ever needed in multiplayer rounds for those who want a level playing field.  For those who enjoy the tournaments I am happy for them.  Just please keep this highly competitive nature in those tournaments where it belongs.

 

You have your preferences. Other players have their preferences.

 

You don't get to tell other people what their preferences are, or should be.

 

That's where you are missing the point.

 

There's nothing wrong with playing a game on equal footing. Multiplayer video games are traditionally - and almost exclusively - played on equal terms.

 

You simply prefer a free-for-all, probably because you would rather play on a custom setting, that is not provided by default.

 

But, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of gamers prefer to play multiplayer games on equal terms.

 

You are the outlier... not everybody else.

 

So, if you cannot find a default setting to play on, out of the five available difficulty levels, than lobby for the host to be able to set custom settings.

 

But, just because you can't figure out how to play on 1 of 5 separate difficulty levels - or are refusing to do so - doesn't mean that other guys should have to play on uneven terms.

 

There are a whole 5 difficulty settings for a reason. Pick one, or learn how to play on at least a few of the levels, as many of us have.

 

But, lobbying to play games on uneven terms, just because you can't figure out how to pick up one of five difficulty levels to choose from... is just a waste of time. There's just no legitimate justification for it.

 

Being able to setup games on custom settings is a separate issue. But, that still doesn't mean that multiplayer video games should be staged on uneven terms.

 

You are basically trying to change everyone else, whilst claiming that it is everyone else that is trying to change you.

 

What you have is nothing more than a first-world-problem. So, figure out how to adapt to the game, rather than trying to make everyone else adapt to you.

[Ted_Ball]

Could we organise a rotation system to provide an opponent for Golden Bear - around the clock?

 

 I dunno...we might only need a handful of players (all swings and levels welcome)...but we should have a reserve pool as people drop out to find other company.

[DennisHarris]

Golden Bear, on 06 Mar 2016 - 3:13 PM, said:

OMG  It is a GAME people.  When will the huge amounts of over analyzing end?  Pick a swing type and simply enjoy the game.  Yes...it is that simple.

 

To all those who continually not understand that this is a GAME that will NEVER mirror real life golf exactly I say this to. Please stop with all the focus being on swing types so PG can finally work on and fix what is truly important in the game, any bugs.  The different swings will never be on par with one another.  The sooner players realize this, we all can get back on the links and start enjoying the game again instead of caring about who is scoring what.  I know it is the farthest thing from my mind.

Golden Bear the over analyzing will never stop.  OP are driving that point home very clearly.  They want to have the game exactly how they want it and to hell with the other 85% or more of the PG community.   Say something opposed to what the 15% want and the cow paddies hit the fan.  So it is what it is!  Total BS. 

[mebby]

DennisHarris, on 06 Mar 2016 - 10:43 PM, said:

Golden Bear the over analyzing will never stop.  OP are driving that point home very clearly.  They want to have the game exactly how they want it and to hell with the other 85% or more of the PG community.   Say something opposed to what the 15% want and the cow paddies hit the fan.  So it is what it is!  Total BS.

That's a pretty aggressive stance there. Care to back up some of that with facts?

[bortimus]

DennisHarris, on 06 Mar 2016 - 10:43 PM, said:

Golden Bear the over analyzing will never stop.  OP are driving that point home very clearly.  They want to have the game exactly how they want it and to hell with the other 85% or more of the PG community.   Say something opposed to what the 15% want and the cow paddies hit the fan.  So it is what it is!  Total BS. 

What exactly is being proposed that would affect how you are currently playing or enjoying the game?  

 

People are asking for certain features because they don't have those options available.

 

Not sure how that is like saying "to hell with the other 85% or more of the PG community"  

[sirputterman]

mebby, on 06 Mar 2016 - 5:10 PM, said:

Further - I think the establishment of Country Clubs will help like-minded players find other to play with on a regular basis.  So imagine if a Country Club were setup for players that prefer playing without the use of certain (or all) assist... it would be very helpful to then have the option of setting up rounds that force those joining to play using the same settings.

 

But based on your reaction to this topic in general I would also guess that you might be against the idea of Country Clubs as well?  These are the ultimate of segregating the player pool by the very definition!

Your 100% correct in you assessment of CC's  "the ultimate way of segregating players" The exact reason I'm  against them. IF there were 50,000 players that played online then it would not be such a big issue but when you have 50 players online at any given time then it really sticks out what little there is to select a game from.  I think that can also spill over into the general lobby of the game also. Again IF there were literally 100's or better thousands of matches to select from then fine filter it down to a narrower field,  but that is no where near where we are at as of right now so rather then sit for two hours watching and waiting in hopes that someone will either set up a game to your liking or making a game and have no one join for hours on end would it not be more enjoyable  to make the limitations far less strict and actually get to play? Just a thought. 

 

I get what  GB is saying and as of now with the circumstances as far as the amount who do play on line I have to agree with him. The time may come where you can stipulate that it must be a full moon and you have to sacrifice a virgin before being allowed to join a game but  that isn't realistic the way things stand right now.

[bortimus]

Golden Bear, on 06 Mar 2016 - 4:46 PM, said:

 

In tournaments I have no issue how much people want to slice and dice up the fields into ever thinning pools of players.  But multiplayer games are for those who are not concerned with scores but are there purely for the enjoyment of playing some rounds with some social interaction.  My concern is already duly noted by some others.  That concern is that the multiplayer lobby is already becoming too thinned out in trying to get rounds started.

 

I bet you would actually see more total open games going if you had separate lobbies available and people could jump into whichever one they wanted to play.  Players would be more inclined to offer up open games in particular lobbies.  I almost guarantee it.  

 

One of the reasons the lobby is thinned out is because many players are locking games and playing with their preferred groups/partners/friends.  Why? To play exactly the way they want!  

[bortimus]

sirputterman, on 06 Mar 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

Your 100% correct in you assessment of CC's  "the ultimate way of segregating players" The exact reason I'm  against them. IF there were 50,000 players that played online then it would not be such a big issue but when you have 50 players online at any given time then it really sticks out what little there is to select a game from.  I think that can also spill over into the general lobby of the game also. Again IF there were literally 100's or better thousands of matches to select from then fine filter it down to a narrower field,  but that is no where near where we are at as of right now so rather then sit for two hours watching and waiting in hopes that someone will either set up a game to your liking or making a game and have no one join for hours on end would it not be more enjoyable  to make the limitations far less strict and actually get to play? Just a thought. 

 

 This is one of the biggest reasons/arguments that actually supports separate lobbies, even with a small total player pool. 

 

Simply jump to the lobby that you like and see if a game is there or set one up.  Much more likely to find an open game.

 

There will always be a general lobby for casual gamers/quick games/newcomers.  No one is advocating for that to be taken away.  

 

But if you add other lobbies you will see more open games across the board.

[AwYea]

After thinking about this today i think i got something that might work. When PG comes out it should say something like "Get off the range, join a Country Club and make your way through Amateur, Semi-pro and Pro Tournament play."

 

How it would work: When you joined a CC, you can use whatever control/difficulty type you want wether you're playing Solo,MP, Challenge matches, whatever... BUT your handicap is constantly being updated with each and every method. Then the game can have pop up statements that you have qualified for Amateur-Semi-Pro-Pro tournament for what ever control/type being currently used and you can accept or decline.

 

Then have Leaderboards for control types/difficulty that showed scores for AM-SP-Pro tournaments, not vice versa. That way people are not going to hardest tournament, lowest score and obsessing over just score at the hardest level like most other golf games. Then coming back and saying all the best players are using 3C.

 

 

[Greensboronclion]

zmax - sim, on 06 Mar 2016 - 1:30 PM, said:

I made a prediction not too long ago on OGT and maybe here too that eventually, most players will be switching over to RTS mouse or controller.

Once people get a feel for RTS, I don't see a reason to keep using MS. As for 3 click, it allows people to just jump in and start playing. I guess some might continue to use it just to keep shooting the same scores. But they too will switch eventually, because RTS is just so much fun.....

In the not too distant future, I suspect to see new versions of each tour to be using RTS.

Z.......I see what your saying but not buying it as the 3C group will always be the bigger group of players and nothing will change that. I myself enjoy MS and am not crazy about RTSM as I want a meter to gauge my swing and if I had that I might switch but until then it's a no for me. The logical solution is to separate MS and 3C in one group and the RTS group in another. I think a lot of people are underestimating the size of the group that are 3C for life but I guarantee you the Devs are not as they know that is the largest group.

[AwYea]

One last thing- When you enter the country club have a listing of people's handicaps for control methods/difficulties used. That way you can see who you would like to play with and just ignore people who might be trying to ruin things by using nothing but 3C hacker. 

[Golden Bear]

Ted_Ball, on 06 Mar 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

Could we organise a rotation system to provide an opponent for Golden Bear - around the clock?

 

 I dunno...we might only need a handful of players (all swings and levels welcome)...but we should have a reserve pool as people drop out to find other company.

I know this is sarcasm but I do not see why you felt so inclined to post it.

[Golden Bear]

sirputterman, on 06 Mar 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:

Your 100% correct in you assessment of CC's  "the ultimate way of segregating players" The exact reason I'm  against them. IF there were 50,000 players that played online then it would not be such a big issue but when you have 50 players online at any given time then it really sticks out what little there is to select a game from.  I think that can also spill over into the general lobby of the game also. Again IF there were literally 100's or better thousands of matches to select from then fine filter it down to a narrower field,  but that is no where near where we are at as of right now so rather then sit for two hours watching and waiting in hopes that someone will either set up a game to your liking or making a game and have no one join for hours on end would it not be more enjoyable  to make the limitations far less strict and actually get to play? Just a thought. 

 

I get what  GB is saying and as of now with the circumstances as far as the amount who do play on line I have to agree with him. The time may come where you can stipulate that it must be a full moon and you have to sacrifice a virgin before being allowed to join a game but  that isn't realistic the way things stand right now.

At least you can see the obvious with so view players online.  As for replying further to others on this issue i am done with it.  The arrogance is already showing from a couple of posters replies.  Tlvx's post smacks of arrogance but that I have come to expect from him.

[Golden Bear]

DennisHarris, on 06 Mar 2016 - 10:43 PM, said:

Golden Bear the over analyzing will never stop.  OP are driving that point home very clearly.  They want to have the game exactly how they want it and to hell with the other 85% or more of the PG community.   Say something opposed to what the 15% want and the cow paddies hit the fan.  So it is what it is!  Total BS. 

I would say it was 10% who want everything their way.    I wish the other 90% would use this forum but they are busy having fun while.....

[sirputterman]

bortimus, on 07 Mar 2016 - 12:04 AM, said:

 This is one of the biggest reasons/arguments that actually supports separate lobbies, even with a small total player pool. 

 

Simply jump to the lobby that you like and see if a game is there or set one up.  Much more likely to find an open game.

 

There will always be a general lobby for casual gamers/quick games/newcomers.  No one is advocating for that to be taken away.  

 

But if you add other lobbies you will see more open games across the board.

Hey I have no real issues with having options but it can get to a point is when is enough? I mean they could have an option that only players that are left handed can join a game, they could have an option that people have to use a certain type of controller(I'm all ready hearing controller x is easier then controller y. So lets set games that only allow a certain controller. Why not have the option that you have to have a pc of a certain spec or you can't play. I mean simple enough to set up a system test. 

See what I mean? Where or when is enough, enough? It can be argued that having endless options is a double edge sword. 

You say that there would be more playing if there were specific lobbies for those that want to play specific  settings, but what if you wanted a game  with tour play but you want 2 ft gimmes and another player wants to play tour but wants no gimmes and a third player wants to play tour but with 4 ft gimmes. See where this is going? You now have 3 games all set at tour but 3 differences. So now if there is only 5 players in a lobby what game gets picked and who is left sitting? I mean you all feel that the way you want to play is the best way so no one gives in and you have no one playing. That may be exaggerated but there is a potential for that type of scenario playing out. Sure you a         have all the options in the world but what good does it do if no one else wants to play your settings?

Sometimes the K.I.S.S system is not such a bad thing either. When you have too many choices sometimes nothing gets chosen.

[J.H.Buchanan]

tlvx, on 06 Mar 2016 - 06:42 AM, said:

I think the scoring issues with tour pro motion at the moment are more related to a bug whereby short putts go left regardless of if the ratio is good or not.

That, and I think adding birds to the game, without the option to turn them off, is creating more lag in the frame rates, thus causing more stuttering for many users of all swing types.

I think we have to accept that no swing type can be made to be completely akin to another, due to unintended consequences of inadvertently adding bugs to things that weren't broken to begin with.

I would recon that, under any tinkering, there will always be players of either swing type, that are just head and shoulders above the average.

We shouldn't be so quick to over-react to the natural eventuality of all video games.

 

Do the birds add a significant amount of whatever that makes them essential even if they didn't cause a problem 

[Golden Bear]

"Hey I have no real issues with having options but it can get to a point is when is enough? I mean they could have an option that only players that are left handed can join a game, they could have an option that people have to use a certain type of controller(I'm all ready hearing controller x is easier then controller y. So lets set games that only allow a certain controller. Why not have the option that you have to have a pc of a certain spec or you can't play. I mean simple enough to set up a system test. 

See what I mean? Where or when is enough, enough? It can be argued that having endless options is a double edge sword. "

 

I have said exactly the same things.  I said next they will want the option for a gaming versus a normal mouse.  But do not try logic on the ones who want everything their way as it always seems to fall on deaf ears. They will never admit that winning is the end all for them.  There is no other reason for wanting everything just so.   What you and I say is fact about what will transpire with further options...hard to find games to play.  But then the damage will already have been done.