210 replies to this topic

[mebby]

Golden Bear, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:33 AM, said:

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.

There are many that agree with your viewpoint. TGC was built on this very premise. They will not implement difficulty levels in their game and I respect them for sticking to their original vision. Anthony Kyne wants everyone to play the same game because he feels it represents golf in real life.

It's hard to argue against that except that there are lots of people that enjoy having difficulty levels and enjoy playing against others using the same (or very similar) settings.

Just different views and that's ok by me. But seeing as how this game is built on a foundation of options (and lots of them) I'd be curious to see what might happen if they allowed us to specific assists in online games. If people hate it, then it won't be used. If they love it... Then it will be used.

My opinion is that it's already happening... It's just happening offline and that's why you're seeing things like password protected games showing up everywhere as well as sites like OTG with their own Team Speak server.

[sirputterman]

Golden Bear, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:33 AM, said:

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.

I agree with with a stipulation added. While you don't want this option to be  it added by the sounds of it period., I will take a more medium ground and say it is not an option that in my opinion needs to be added now. My reason for this is in the future if the game grows to a point that there are so many players on line then I see no real harm adding  this option. The time being though that is not the case and I think if those that want to play a certain way can in fact do so just by password and invite those that they know want to play that way. They could "open it up by extending an invite in the chat of the lobby.  

No real skin off my nose as long (and this is a big concern) as  it does not take priority over other things that should be added for the betterment of the game and for the enjoyment of the whole community. IF it  did then I would be more then a bit ticked.        

[Golden Bear]

___ buck ___, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

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.

No problem at all mate.  we both have said our views.    We shall agree to disagree.

[Buck]

Golden Bear, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:45 AM, said:

No problem at all mate.  we both have said our views.    We shall agree to disagree.

 

Agreed!  :-)

 

I guess I just don't see how it's hurting the game to have options for those that want them.  

 

Those same people that want to play a certain way are simply never going to want to play in games that aren't equalized, so I don't understand what's lost.  It's better to have people playing online how they'd like to, instead of not playing online at all, isn't it?

[sirputterman]

tlvx, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:37 AM, said:

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

Sadly there are physical limitations even in a video game. Age, injuries, disabilities can all effect what method we have to use to play. I'm not one of these people but they do exist and they too do enjoy playing this game. I would certainly be against anything that would not allow anyone to be able to join a game just because they did have one of the situations I mentioned excluding them from playing any game.  

[tlvx]

Golden Bear, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:43 AM, said:

" 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.

 

You want guys to accept your ridiculous ideal of playing multiplayer video games on unfair terms.

 

In point of fact, what you are arguing for is less fairness, as a way to cater to your own first-world-problems.

 

Just let it go man. You are not preaching to a choir because there is no choir.

 

Apparently, you think you need there to be a Poll, for you to understand what basic fairness in games is all about... which is; everyone playing under the same rules, and subject to the same penalties.

 

Somebody, anybody, put a poll together so that we can stop listening to these specious arguments about how to get around fairness, for the greater good of one single dude... and all that ludicrous nonsense.

 

You want a participation trophy? Make one up... just like you're making everything else up.

 

Otherwise, endeavor to learn how to play the game on the available levels offered... like everyone else already has done.

[Golden Bear]

@ sirputterman  "I agree with with a stipulation added. While you don't want this option to be  it added by the sounds of it period., I will take a more medium ground and say it is not an option that in my opinion needs to be added now."

 

I am not that rigid, lol.  I see no issue in the future if and when the online lobby explodes with many more players to have these options incorporated.  Most of my posts are about thinning what is already a small pool on online players.  In the future, sure, why not?

[Golden Bear]

sirputterman, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:49 AM, said:

Sadly there are physical limitations even in a video game. Age, injuries, disabilities can all effect what method we have to use to play. I'm not one of these people but they do exist and they too do enjoy playing this game. I would certainly be against anything that would not allow anyone to be able to join a game just because they did have one of the situations I mentioned excluding them from playing any game.  

I already had mentioned those to him.  I do not know why he asked the question.

[mebby]

tlvx, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:49 AM, said:

You want guys to accept your ridiculous ideal of playing multiplayer video games on unfair terms.
 
In point of fact, what you are arguing for is less fairness, as a way to cater to your own first-world-problems.
 
Just let it go man. You are not preaching to a choir because there is no choir.
 
Apparently, you think you need there to be a Poll, for you to understand what basic fairness in games is all about... which is; everyone playing under the same rules, and subject to the same penalties.
 
Somebody, anybody, put a poll together so that we can stop listening to these specious arguments about how to get around fairness, for the greater good of one dude... and all that ludicrous nonsense.
 
You want a participation trophy? Make one up... just like you're making everything else up.

Easy killer! While I agree with your core points, we are trying to carry on a civil and open discussion here. No need to get rude.

[bortimus]

Golden Bear, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:43 AM, said:

" 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.

GB, oddly enough, with the amount of friends you have made and the fact that you are in the majority ensures that nothing would change for you and your playing partners.  You literally have the least to worry about.  

 

Why would more lobbies change the majority stronghold as it exists now?  Nobody is asking for that.

If you are worried that you would *lose* players, it would be because they found an alternative they liked.  Good for them!  

We don't have the option to grow an alternative group of players in the current system.    

 

And btw,  I would like to see the game have a vigorous future just as much as you. 

 

Edit:  The game isn't losing players by switching to different lobbies.  They are all still playing the same game.  And probably playing more!

[tlvx]

mebby, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:54 AM, said:

Easy killer! While I agree with your core points, we are trying to carry on a civil and open discussion here. No need to get rude.

 

Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

 

Not a right to force their opinion on everyone else, lest everyone else be accused of, "arrogance."

 

Let's examine what civility and rudeness means before we overlook the obvious.

[Golden Bear]

@ tlvx   "You want guys to accept your ridiculous ideal of playing multiplayer video games on unfair terms."

 

 It is not my issue that you find what I propose to be unfair, that is yours.  I raised my difficulty settings very early on in the games development.  Others seemed to be behind in upping their difficulty settings though.  For many weeks I played those who used easier settings than me.  I did not find this unfair at all.  So I cannot understand your point.  I find it equally "ridiculous" that you worry about playing a video game on what you perceive to be "unfair terms".  We could keep going around in circles but I am off to have fun playing some rounds while caring not who uses what, or who wins the rounds.  

[DennisHarris]

mebby, on 06 Mar 2016 - 10:53 PM, said:

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

Ok lets being with you.  Talk about aggressive sir.  You also fit the bil.   If you disagree with someone you aggressively response in kind.    You sir are 1 of the 15% I am talking about.  Sorry to be so personal but what is.......is!

[tlvx]

Golden Bear, on 07 Mar 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:

@ tlvx   "You want guys to accept your ridiculous ideal of playing multiplayer video games on unfair terms."

 

 It is not my issue that you find what I propose to be unfair, that is yours.  I raised my difficulty settings very early on in the games development.  Others seemed to be behind in upping their difficulty settings though.  For many weeks I played those who used easier settings than me.  I did not find this unfair at all.  So I cannot understand your point.  I find it equally "ridiculous" that you worry about playing a video game on what you perceive to be "unfair terms".  We could keep going around in circles but I am off to have fun playing some rounds while caring not who uses what, or who wins the rounds.  

 

The developers have changed and adjusted the settings and physics several times, over the last year.

 

Where have you been?

 

The game has been a constant learning process for all involved... except you. -- You simply are refusing to adapt. Guess what? That's your choice.

 

But listen here; You don't get to call guys "arrogant" or having a "win at all costs attitude" for merely setting up games on level terms.

 

You are making false accusations against a large portion of the community. It needs to stop.

[Golden Bear]

bortimus, on 07 Mar 2016 - 03:58 AM, said:

GB, oddly enough, with the amount of friends you have made and the fact that you are in the majority ensures that nothing would change for you and your playing partners.  You literally have the least to worry about.  

 

Why would more lobbies change the majority stronghold as it exists now?  Nobody is asking for that.

If you are worried that you would *lose* players, it would be because they found an alternative they liked.  Good for them!  

We don't have the option to grow an alternative group of players in the current system.    

 

And btw,  I would like to see the game have a vigorous future just as much as you. 

 

Edit:  The game isn't losing players by switching to different lobbies.  They are all still playing the same game.  And probably playing more!

Some like tlvx seem to be taking this personally.   That is my sole intended purpose debating in this thread, the betterment of the game for all.  I live for online play and have over 1800 hours so far so I do know how the online lobby has transpired very well.  Let this wait until there is more than 100 players  on a given day.  With more players the inevitable splitting of the lobby would then not induce the feared waiting for minutes to get a round going syndrome.

[Golden Bear]

DennisHarris, on 07 Mar 2016 - 04:04 AM, said:

Ok lets being with you.  Talk about aggressive sir.  You also fit the bil.   If you disagree with someone you aggressively response in kind.    You sir are 1 of the 15% I am talking about.  Sorry to be so personal but what is.......is!

Mebby words his posts eloquently and I do not see any issue with him.  He does not become personal like one troublemaker here who cannot make a decent rebuttal yet instead just hurls nonsensical insults.

[mebby]

DennisHarris, on 07 Mar 2016 - 04:04 AM, said:

Ok lets being with you.  Talk about aggressive sir.  You also fit the bil.   If you disagree with someone you aggressively response in kind.    You sir are 1 of the 15% I am talking about.  Sorry to be so personal but what is.......is!

I've been nothing but civil and open in this discussion, listening to the views that oppose mine so I'm not sure where you are coming off calling me aggressive.

The point I was making regarding your post is that I assume you are making assumptions about "the 15%" or "the 85%" and if not... Explain why you feel that 85% of the population agree with your view.

There's no need to get so excited. You seem far more excited about defending your position than the rest of us who are simply having an open discussion.

My bottom line is that I can't understand how ADDING options ends up taking anything away from anyone. Just repeat that sentence out loud.

[Buck]

Golden Bear, on 07 Mar 2016 - 04:10 AM, said:

Mebby words his posts eloquently

 

Just like ADX would say it!  

[mebby]

___ buck ___, on 07 Mar 2016 - 04:11 AM, said:

Just like ADX would say it!  

Hahaha! Them is fightin' words!!!

[tlvx]

Golden Bear, on 07 Mar 2016 - 04:08 AM, said:

Some like tlvx seem to be taking this personally.   That is my sole intended purpose debating in this thread, the betterment of the game for all.  I live for online play and have over 1800 hours so far so I do know how the online lobby has transpired very well.  Let this wait until there is more than 100 players  on a given day.  With more players the inevitable splitting of the lobby would then not induce the feared waiting for minutes to get a round going syndrome.

 

This is not personal to me. This is merely a game, that some of us know how to navigate; and some of us just haven't figured this stuff out yet.

 

It's clearly personal to you though. You are the one that seems to have a problem figuring out how to play the game on one of the five levels that are being offered.

 

I, on the other hand, can competently join a game on all five difficulty levels. -- It's called, Practice. Figure it out, dude.

 

So, since you have nothing factual or evidentiary to say... it must be "personal," for everyone else.

 

Nope, another failed argument.