210 replies to this topic

[bortimus]

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.

Of course you could outline a ridiculously specific scenario where choices seem absurd.  I'm not saying that.  

 

Look at the current lobby.  If people are having a hard time finding games (like you said), what does that mean?

 

Does the current system not give people enough options?  Why are people locking so many games or only playing with a few friends?  

 

I'm suggesting that if other lobbies (whatever those may be) were opened you would see more of the locked games actually appearing as open games within those lobbies, thereby encouraging more intermingling of players in general.  

[Golden Bear]

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

I like the wildlife on the courses since they are a part of real golf.  Therefore to me they add to the realism being strived for in this game.

[bortimus]

  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.

GB, you keep saying the same thing about winning/arrogance when someone disagrees with you.  Not sure where you are seeing that in these posts.  

 

Can anyone offer an actual explanation of how separate lobbies hurt the game in general?  

It gives players more reasons to not lock games and more opportunities to get into games that they may otherwise not find in the current lobby.  

 

Sounds... reasonable  

[Golden Bear]

Of course you could outline a ridiculously specific scenario where choices seem absurd.  I'm not saying that.  

 

Look at the current lobby.  If people are having a hard time finding games (like you said), what does that mean?

 

Does the current system not give people enough options?  Why are people locking so many games or only playing with a few friends?  

 

I'm suggesting that if other lobbies (whatever those may be) were opened you would see more of the locked games actually appearing as open games within those lobbies, thereby encouraging more intermingling of players in general.  

Because players were given the option to force settings on others is why it is hard to get games going.  Along with forced settings comes attitude.  it is the "all shall play what I play or else" scenario.  As for the locking of rounds, I believe that has more to do with friends who have already all they want in a round (decided before posting the round) or have favourites to play with.  With anything allowed one can play exactly what they prefer hence rounds fill up very quickly.  Of course this only works if one is only concerned with besting their personal scores on the courses and does not take themselves or a game too seriously.

[sirputterman]

GB, you keep saying the same thing about winning/arrogance when someone disagrees with you.  Not sure where you are seeing that in these posts.  

 

Can anyone offer an actual explanation of how separate lobbies hurt the game in general?  

It gives players more reasons to not lock games and more opportunities to get into games that they may otherwise not find in the current lobby.  

 

Sounds... reasonable  

Actually if you set a game down to the nth specifics are you not accomplishing the exact same thing as "locking a game" ? I mean you have the settings so detailed that there is bond to be only very few players that will choose to play that way. It all washes out to be the same thing in my opinion. Your just locking the game by options or settings instead of using a password. Same result though.  

[bortimus]

Because players were given the option to force settings on others is why it is hard to get games going.  Along with forced settings comes attitude.  it is the "all shall play what I play or else" scenario.  As for the locking of rounds, I believe that has more to do with friends who have already all they want in a round (decided before posting the round) or have favourites to play with.  With anything allowed one can play exactly what they prefer hence rounds fill up very quickly.  Of course this only works if one is only concerned with besting their personal scores on the courses and does not take themselves or a game too seriously.

Isn't this just your interpretation of the situation?  I've never gotten into a game that someone else setup and felt this way.  Wouldn't you simply just not play with those people anymore?  

 

Also, doesn't the use of preferred settings by many players demonstrate that there's a demand for that sort of thing?  

 

An easy way to figure out what people want would be to poll the forum community.  

 

Also, if lobbies were setup, you wouldn't have anything to lose, and you would see many players benefit.  

The players that wanted to remain playing whatever styles you see currently in the lobby would still have that available.

The players who currently aren't getting the games they prefer would jump into other lobbies, likely finding the fun they were seeking.     

[Golden Bear]

GB, you keep saying the same thing about winning/arrogance when someone disagrees with you.  Not sure where you are seeing that in these posts.  

 

Can anyone offer an actual explanation of how separate lobbies hurt the game in general?  

It gives players more reasons to not lock games and more opportunities to get into games that they may otherwise not find in the current lobby.  

 

Sounds... reasonable  

Post #33 in this thread is where I try to explain in great detail my view point.  Also read post #5 in Set Aids/Assists...  the obvious is explained there as tyo why mutliplayer rounds will become increasingly difficult to find players.  

 

I also explain why I mention arrogance by some and the win or bust mentality.  It has nothing to do with anyone disagreeing with me.  I do believe I word my posts well and without malice. 

 

Let me ask a question that no one seems to be able to answer.  Why are some here so pre occupied with everything being set up exactly the same for all?  Try explaining how that is not "ultra" competitive.  In real life no two golfers are exactly the same due to physical limitations.  So in fact by forcing everyone to be a carbon copy of each other, the realism is now being taken out of the game.  Please try to refute those points.

[bortimus]

Actually if you set a game down to the nth specifics are you not accomplishing the exact same thing as "locking a game" ? I mean you have the settings so detailed that there is bond to be only very few players that will choose to play that way. It all washes out to be the same thing in my opinion. Your just locking the game by options or settings instead of using a password. Same result though.  

 

I can't see a scenario where you would have "nth" degree lobbies.   

 

What I do see is several more generalized lobbies where more open games are actually offered rather than a bunch of locked games in one big lobby.  

 

There would be a net gain in open online play across the board.  

[mebby]

Post #33 in this thread is where I try to explain in great detail my view point.  Also read post #5 in Set Aids/Assists...  the obvious is explained there as tyo why mutliplayer rounds will become increasingly difficult to find players.  
 
I also explain why I mention arrogance by some and the win or bust mentality.  It has nothing to do with anyone disagreeing with me.  I do believe I word my posts well and without malice. 
 
Let me ask a question that no one seems to be able to answer.  Why are some here so pre occupied with everything being set up exactly the same for all?  Try explaining how that is not "ultra" competitive.  In real life no two golfers are exactly the same due to physical limitations.  So in fact by forcing everyone to be a carbon copy of each other, the realism is now being taken out of the game.  Please try to refute those points.

In the spirit of open, and non-confrontational debate...

I'll simply turn the question around. Why are some people so preoccupied with NOT allowing users to set more parameters for online game play? Isn't this contradictory to the very spirit of passionately defending your same view. People have different views... That's the real answer to your question. And to me... That's perfectly fine.

Supply and demand will ultimately tell us who is in the majority of these viewpoints and who is in the minority. If I were to keep setting up games that no one is interested in playing then I'd either stop trying to set those up or settle to play like others want to.

[tlvx]

The real question to the, "win or bust," argument is: Who cares?

 

Who cares if other users play video games to try to win?

 

Is playing to win in multiplayer games not everyone's prerogative?

 

Isn't it more unsporting to accuse players of, "arrogance," for merely playing their role to the best of their ability in a multiplayer game?

 

Everyone has their own reasons for playing video games. -- Mediocrity is probably not a front-runner, either. Players don't become mediocre for lack of trying to win.

 

That is a specious argument, that is totally irrelevant to playing multiplayer games on level terms.

 

Just because someone doesn't care if they win or lose doesn't give them to right to expect anyone else to feel that way... nor does it give them the right to make other users play on Uneven terms, lest they be accused of, "arrogance."

[Golden Bear]

Isn't this just your interpretation of the situation?  I've never gotten into a game that someone else setup and felt this way.  Wouldn't you simply just not play with those people anymore?  

 

Also, doesn't the use of preferred settings by many players demonstrate that there's a demand for that sort of thing?  

 

An easy way to figure out what people want would be to poll the forum community.  

 

Also, if lobbies were setup, you wouldn't have anything to lose, and you would see many players benefit.  

The players that wanted to remain playing whatever styles you see currently in the lobby would still have that available.

The players who currently aren't getting the games they prefer would jump into other lobbies, likely finding the fun they were seeking.     

 

If there were 1000's or at least 100's of players online what you suggest would be viable.  But until such a day exists, what I and others profess will become factual.  There will be waiting games for all in online lobbies.

 

It would be nice to just once not have this game pandering to those who want every single option their way.  Some do not seem concerned that they are sucking the joy out of this for others.

 

One person had the audacity in a post to request that 3 click be done away with.  This person seems concerned not  with the enjoyment of those with handicaps who would find mouse swings too difficult to use.  It is this selfish attitude that seems to be haunting this forum now with one side wanting it all and not wanting to compromise for others one single bit. 

 

If there is such a demand for rounds where every little thing is preset for all, then it should be a cakewalk to find like minded players for a group.  The honour system would be used.  If one is not willing to use the honour system with those they play with, I suggest finding players you do trust.

 

Some will disagree with my post and that is fine.  Yet it is how I and some others feel.  Winning is never important while playing a game, only fun is.  Those who want these options mentioned in these posts are very concerned about winning or what they perceive as a fair chance of winning.  There is no other way to look at this.  Otherwise players would simply load up a round for all to play and simply have a good time.  I have found 127 friends who think this way in the game.  So we are out there too.

[sirputterman]

Isn't this just your interpretation of the situation?  I've never gotten into a game that someone else setup and felt this way.  Wouldn't you simply just not play with those people anymore?  

 

Also, doesn't the use of preferred settings by many players demonstrate that there's a demand for that sort of thing?  

 

An easy way to figure out what people want would be to poll the forum community.  

 

Also, if lobbies were setup, you wouldn't have anything to lose, and you would see many players benefit.  

The players that wanted to remain playing whatever styles you see currently in the lobby would still have that available.

The players who currently aren't getting the games they prefer would jump into other lobbies, likely finding the fun they were seeking.     

I guess the only issue I have with this is that instead of having one big community  you end up with a scattering of the few players on line now into even smaller or more segregated groups. As I said if there were 100's or 1000's on line that would certainly make it a different situation. The reality is though there isn't 100's on line in fact sometimes it's almost a ghost town in the lobby. Now you take that number and divide it even into smaller groups. Is this such a good thing for the game as a whole? Sure it may make a few happy but in the long run if the game does not grow with more people playing it does not bode well for the health of the game.  

[Buck]

Well, lots to chew on here.... I don't have a lot to add other than I do hope we get some options to restrict aids when desired.

 

As both Mebby and I know, there's a really pure and fun joy from playing No BLI/Grids that would be really fun to play on with a group/tournament.

 

PG is definitely a game of options, which is a strength I'd say, so I'm hopeful these particular options will come.

[Golden Bear]

In the spirit of open, and non-confrontational debate...

I'll simply turn the question around. Why are some people so preoccupied with NOT allowing users to set more parameters for online game play? Isn't this contradictory to the very spirit of passionately defending your same view. People have different views... That's the real answer to your question. And to me... That's perfectly fine.

Supply and demand will ultimately tell us who is in the majority of these viewpoints and who is in the minority. If I were to keep setting up games that no one is interested in playing then I'd either stop trying to set those up or settle to play like others want to.

I mentioned in another post that we were given the option already via the difficulty levels.  The swing options were never intended to be used as a measuring stick for an advantage or disadvantage.  I posted earlier that in real life all golfers are not the same due to physical limitations.  So in fact by forcing all to be carbon copies of each other setting rounds this way takes away from the realism of that the game is striving for.  If one cannot see how ridiculous this is and all the nitpicking for it to be added, then logic is falling on deaf ears.  I have tried in every conceivable way to explain why this is one option that should not be added.  As before, i say this with respect, Mebby.

[Buck]

Winning is never important while playing a game, only fun is.  Those who want these options mentioned in these posts are very concerned about winning or what they perceive as a fair chance of winning. 

 

Golden I have to disagree here a touch.  

 

Sports, be it in person or virtual, have always had an element of competition.  The drive to compete, work harder and achieve success is absolutely a core tenet of sports.  Discovering where your skills lie vs like minded and equipped competition and then working to rise above is a fundamental aspect of athletic and intellectual competition.

 

Does it need to be this way at all times?  No.

 

But the ability to have a level field with which to compete against others, for those that desire such an experience, should absolutely be there I think.

[tlvx]

The swing options were never intended to be used as a measuring stick for an advantage or disadvantage.  

 

What? You're just making stuff up. Quote a developer saying anything of the sort.

[tlvx]

 I posted earlier that in real life all golfers are not the same due to physical limitations.

 

What, "physical limitations," should exist in video game land?

[bortimus]

I guess the only issue I have with this is that instead of having one big community  you end up with a scattering of the few players on line now into even smaller or more segregated groups. As I said if there were 100's or 1000's on line that would certainly make it a different situation. The reality is though there isn't 100's on line in fact sometimes it's almost a ghost town in the lobby. Now you take that number and divide it even into smaller groups. Is this such a good thing for the game as a whole? Sure it may make a few happy but in the long run if the game does not grow with more people playing it does not bode well for the health of the game.  

I really do understand what you're saying.   But the small numbers now seem to suggest that a lot of people aren't finding what they want.

The segregated lobby would really only be a matter of a tab you can click on and those players are still playing, just finding their games under a different category.  They haven't left the game.  

I really do believe that there would be more total people playing and more open games offered.  

I don't even play online very much, but I would definitely play more if there were different lobbies available.     

[Buck]

To add to what Bortimus is saying above...

 

You can't force people to play a certain way that they aren't interested in.  It sounds good to have everyone in one big pool so that more games happen, but a lot of us just aren't interested in co-mingling RTS-C Tour Pro with 3C Amateur (as an example).  It's nothing personal, but it just feels like we are playing totally different games and there's just not a commonality that is shared and enjoyed there.

 

This is sort of parallel to what happened over at TGC for some of us.  The way they designed the game (too easy so they could cater to all) became boring and we flat out stopped playing the game altogether!  

 

You have to give people ways to play that they enjoy and organize around that, or they might not play at all!

[Golden Bear]

" Sure it may make a few happy but in the long run if the game does not grow with more people playing it does not bode well for the health of the game."  

 

That is why I am so passionate about this subject.  It is only a few who want to change this game for the majority.  The sad fact is those who need to be on this forum adding numbers to my side of this debate will never show up.  Most who do not frequent game forums are too busy simply having a good time.  So if a poll is put up I am sure the opposing side would win it.  I am only on this forum to offer suggestions, bug reports and to lend a voice on how I would like to see this game develop.  If I did not frequent the forum they I cannot complain the day it is fully released, that it is not what I expected.