123 replies to this topic

[frank70]

Speaking of MS and RTS-M:

 

Before the patch each "mishit variable" (swing plane, ratio, heel/toe) seemed to have an equally weighted effect on the applied penalty. An outside/in swing plane of 1 resulted in a little fade. A toe hit of 7 resulted in a little fade. It wasn't a big effect but it could be seen clearly. A 0.26 ratio pushed the ball to the right but there wasn't much spin effect to the right when the two other variables were on the money.

 

After the patch the ratio seems to clearly dominate the left/right penalty. If you hit it with a 0.25 ratio and 1 outside/in there is almost no "fade movement" on the ball. And the heel/toe mishits seems to have almost no impact on the ballflight (sidespin). The ratio on the other hand is brutally unforgiving. Hit driver with perfect swing plane, 0 heel/toe and a 0.24 ratio the ball goes a good amount to the left.

 

Before the patch you were rewarded if you've got two of the three mishit variables right. Right now the ratio dominates almost the whole ballflight. And it has an effect on the workability of the ball as well. Before the patch you could play draws and fades with a rather gentle variation of the swing plane - now you have to alter your swing plane a lot to make the ball curve. And it kind of limits the variation of ball flights.

 

I liked the former formula of mishits way better. The devs tried to make MS and RTS-M harder, which was absolutely okay. But i would find it better if we could use the old formula and make all mishits variables a little bit harder proportionally. Not ratio penalty way more severe and the two others way less severe.

[AwYea]

They definitely bumped up tour pro and i agree with everything thing you said. Right now, it just not something i'm going to try and tackle. I can have fun on AM or Pro which is what i'll stick with for a good while and when i master Pro i'll move up.

 

I do think it was a good idea to change it and will bring game scores closer to what tour pros are actually shooting in real life.

[tlvx]

I think that, when it gets to the point where a perfect shot does not even do what is envisioned, than tinkering has obviously gone too far.

[MimicPS]

Well analysed on the swing changes Frank.

 

My opinion, however, is that the much increased tempo requirement and the penalties not being evenly spread across the variables is exactly the direction we needed it to go to be able to hold our heads up in any discussion about difficulty/fairness of ability levels.

 

My vote is that it has been a correct move.

 

My views on changes to add an additional variable to the click swing is documented in earlier posts I've made.

[frank70]

Well analysed on the swing changes Frank.

 

My opinion, however, is that the much increased tempo requirement and the penalties not being evenly spread across the variables is exactly the direction we needed it to go to be able to hold our heads up in any discussion about difficulty/fairness of ability levels.

 

My vote is that it has been a correct move.

 

My views on changes to add an additional variable to the click swing is documented in earlier posts I've made.

I understand that if you look at it as a try to bring the effects of missing the snap and being off with the ratio more together (3-click vs MS or RTS-M).

 

But i don't like that concept at all. Point is, that 3-click is hampered in itself to even take these different mishit variables into account. A missed snap early for instance is an inside out, 0.24 ratio (or more) and a heel mishit all at once (or only the ratio is taken into account - a dev should clear that up). Using 3-click you cannot have a 0.23 ratio combined with an 2 outside/in swing (what would even the direction penalty out). It is just ball goes left or ball goes right.

 

Why in the world was the wonderful variety of the MS or real time swing hampered because of intended parity with an 30 year old swing mechanic?? The different mishit variables were perfectly weighted before the patch. You could see wonderful push draws, that began to curve in the last third of the flight - not anymore.

I just find it odd that we change a modern innovative swing mechanic to make it comparable to a very dated swing mechanic.

 

Please, please revert that back and make all mishit variables a little bit severe than before the patch (all three equal - not only ratio!!)!! TP should be hard (harder than before the patch).

TP is harder now but it lost a lot of variety and realism (different ballflights) imho.

[frank70]

My opinion, however, is that the much increased tempo requirement and the penalties not being evenly spread across the variables is exactly the direction we needed it to go to be able to hold our heads up in any discussion about difficulty/fairness of ability levels.

Why has it to be done more or less one-dimensional (with the ratio). Why not make all 3 penalties a little bit more severe and preserve the beauty of the MS or RTS-M?

 

If all penalty variables would have been made a little harsher (+10-15 %), the results - more deviation left or right - would have been the same. But the whole concept of the new swing and the realistic ball flight physics (spin left or right) would have been preserved.

[MimicPS]

Bear in mind though that a failure to hit the snap point on 3-click also takes a great deal of distance off the shot, whereas with the 'movement' swings that is less pronounced. Fine if you don't want it sailing out high, wide and none too handsome into the deep rough and horrors that lie off of the beaten track..... not so good if you have a body of water to carry!

 

My suggestion - taken note of by the dev team during their deliberations in creating swing 'mechanics' but which they felt would take away from a familiar, trusted and accessible 'Classic' 3-swing system - would have been for a fourth click to be introduced. The swingmeter would start at the same point as it does for putting, and the 2nd click after the initial start of swing at the 6 o'clock point would determine the club path being open, closed or flush through takeaway and delivery. The 2nd phase to the 3rd click would purely determine power, and the downswing to the final click would determine ball direction. The power/distance of the shot would not be affected in the same manner as it is, and though a combination of mis-snaps would affect distance, the effect would not be so pronounced. That would make the aforementioned 'body of water' shot less of a challenge, but would see clickers exploring the same sort of landing spots long and wide, that movement players can find themselves in.

 

The debate on that point is done, with the dev team wanting to make the game as accessible to the fullest range of players, both from other past franchises and new to computer golfing, and I understand their business strategy in doing so. It means though that closer attention should be paid to even out shot difficulty if at all possible in the interests of trying to avoid as much diversification in challenge as seems to be developing. The main division in difficulty should always focus on ability level chosen and assists used, rather than on swing mechanics where they suffer from in-built advantage and disadvantage.

[frank70]

Bear in mind though that a failure to hit the snap point on 3-click also takes a great deal of distance off the shot, whereas with the 'movement' swings that is less pronounced. Fine if you don't want it sailing out high, wide and none too handsome into the deep rough and horrors that lie off of the beaten track..... not so good if you have a body of water to carry!

 

My suggestion - taken note of by the dev team during their deliberations in creating swing 'mechanics' but which they felt would take away from a familiar, trusted and accessible 'Classic' 3-swing system - would have been for a fourth click to be introduced. The swingmeter would start at the same point as it does for putting, and the 2nd click after the initial start of swing at the 6 o'clock point would determine the club path being open, closed or flush through takeaway and delivery. The 2nd phase to the 3rd click would purely determine power, and the downswing to the final click would determine ball direction. The power/distance of the shot would not be affected in the same manner as it is, and though a combination of mis-snaps would affect distance, the effect would not be so pronounced. That would make the aforementioned 'body of water' shot less of a challenge, but would see clickers exploring the same sort of landing spots long and wide, that movement players can find themselves in.

 

The debate on that point is done, with the dev team wanting to make the game as accessible to the fullest range of players, both from other past franchises and new to computer golfing, and I understand their business strategy in doing so. It means though that closer attention should be paid to even out shot difficulty if at all possible in the interests of trying to avoid as much diversification in challenge as their seems to be developing. The main division in difficulty should always focus on ability level chosen and assists used, rather than on swing mechanics where they suffer from in-built advantage and disadvantage.

So you really like the move to make the RTS-M or the MS a lot more one-dimensional to make up for the short-comings of an 30 year old swing mechanic? Wow!!

 

I cannot understand the decision to kind of "dumb down" the best innovation of the golf genre since 20 years!!!

 

Leave the RTS-M as it was! Make it more difficult - but stay with the concept!!

[AwYea]

Dare i go down this road again...wth

 

I can hit all the the same shots with the new tour pro as i could with the old. The thing is for me is i have to be so precise i don't know if i can pull it off consistently. People are playing the new tour pro very well. Well, i've seen 1 guy boss something hang, and that's it.

 

I think there is a bigger question at issue and that's time to play a round. Am has been a blast because i can get a rd in 30 mins. For me, playing tour pro at the new difficulty has added even more time than before on tour pro which was 40-45 mins. Now, it's going to take me close to an hr on tour pro? I already heard complaints before about rds taking too long from some.

[MimicPS]

I guess you are seeing things differently from me Frank. If I am hitting them well on the range, I see all of the off-tempo and swing path mechanics as we did before, though more pronounced in the one variable of tempo. For me it means even more to trust in the tempo that feels right. Also, the same goes for RTS-Mouse... still very much a work in progress but I get the stock 'shape' there too if I'm 'on it'. Strangely though, my stock shape is the inverse of that in MS with a 'baby fade' rather than a rather attractive draw in MS.

[MimicPS]

So you really like the move to make the RTS-M or the MS more or less one-dimensional to make up for the short-comings of an 30 year old swing mechanic? Wow!!

 

I cannot understand the decision to dumb down the best innovation of the golf genre since 20 years to cater the 3-clickers!!!

 

Leave the RTS-M as it was! Make it more difficult - but stay with the concept!!

 

No Frank, you pick up on me choosing to accept the dev team's decision as agreement. I would have hoped that my post pointed out that I feel it means it becomes a swing of the 'lowest common denominator' and sets a poor height of bar for which other swings either come down to, or suffer for being mechanics which have more 'moving parts' which have intrinsically more challenge.

 

Until that is addressed in some way or other, a division between players into separate camps is almost inevitable.

[frank70]

I guess you are seeing things differently from me Frank. If I am hitting them well on the range, I see all of the off-tempo and swing path mechanics as we did before, though more pronounced in the one variable of tempo. For me it means even more to trust in the tempo that feels right. Also, the same goes for RTS-Mouse... still very much a work in progress but I get the stock 'shape' there too if I'm 'on it'. Strangely though, my stock shape is the inverse of that in MS with a 'baby fade' rather than a rather attractive draw in MS.

I think we see the changes exactly the same - we evaluate them differently.

 

Fact is: Tempo is dominating the outcome of a shot way more than before. And swing path and hitting the sweet spot does play a much lesser role. And all this to make the outcome more comparable to 3-click (which is a one-dimensional swing mechanic).

 

The combination of all three variables was the reason, that made MS so innovative and realistic. This is not completely gone but hampered in a considerable way. And for the wrong reason. To make FIR and GIR more comparable between Clickers and swingers it wasn't necessary to go down that road. A proportional increase of all penalties would have done the same without changing the core of the MS or RTS.

[frank70]

..... 'lowest common denominator' and sets a poor height of bar for mechanics which have more 'moving parts' which have intrinsically more challenge.

 

Until that is addressed in some way or other, a division between players into separate camps is almost inevitable.

And this is my problem: To make an outdated swing mechanic the standard/base line. Not a good decision imho.

And this is why: When hitting a golf ball in real life it is absolutely possible to be a little early without losing height or distance - so it was with MS. It was never possible with 3-click - because of the "one-dimension-snap" (missed snap  always means loss of length). And now we take the swing mechanic that is more away from realism as benchmark??

 

Trying to keep fields together is obviously a good goal. But if you begin to "dumb down" a wonderful swing mechanic you worked on for almost two years, it becomes questionable if this is the right road. Then it maybe would be better to divide fields in tournaments.

[MimicPS]

And this is my problem: To make an outdated swing mechanic the standard. Not a good decision imho.

 

Trying to keep fields together is obviously a good goal. But if you begin to "dumb down" a wonderful swing mechanic you worked on for almost two years, it becomes questionable if this is the right road. Then it maybe would be better to divide fields in tournaments.

 

Agreed. All we can do is keep making the point. The older titles tended to have an 'Easy Swing' option and something that required more of the variables to be under control, so I have hope that in time, such a fantastic and immersive game will see the need to bring about some sort of evolution in the Click swing...... Click+ anyone?

[Mike Jones]

I've just been on the range to test and with a driver, a ratio of 0.27 and a swing path of 3 degrees in/out produced a baby draw which finished approx 4 yards left of centre. Seemed ok to me.

 

It's still very possible to move the ball around with fades and draws but of course it's not in the proportion you have previously got used to.

[bortimus]

Frank, I understand your point about ratio having a big effect.  I agree, it's huge.

 

But I actually prefer that the ratio is dominant and here's why.  You just can't cheat the ratio.  

 

If you put too much emphasis on offset and path, people could try to use a straight edge or draw lines on their mousepad or whatever and get an advantage.  Having a ratio dominated swing ensures that these techniques aren't useful.    

 

Also, having a dominant ratio introduces huge misses for yippy, nervous shots where the player tries to force something in their swing and throws off the timing.  I like that element of the game.  

[bortimus]

Forgot to say...

Since you can't see the cursor's path or origin point, it makes more sense to have the path factor a little less (more movement needed).  If the path were too much of an influence, even slight deviations that you can't feel would curve the ball too much.  

 

It's much better to have the path requiring more pronounced movement so the player can at least sense what they are doing.   

[frank70]

I've just been on the range to test and with a driver, a ratio of 0.27 and a swing path of 3 degrees in/out produced a baby draw which finished approx 4 yards left of centre. Seemed ok to me.

 

It's still very possible to move the ball around with fades and draws but of course it's not in the proportion you have previously got used to.

That's right Mike. But with your example: You maybe get a gentle draw .... that lands way right in the corridor. Before it would have landed a little left in the corridor, because swing path was more important. You can still work the ball but the deviation for a little missed swing ratio is that big that it is almost impossible to control.

 

Just curious: Do you think that timing (ratio) is equally dominant playing real golf as it is now in the game? I mean you had the ball/spin physics pre-patch for more than a year. Did you change it because it is more realistic or did you change it for strategical reasons within the game?

 

I just find it odd, that the ball jumps to the left by a good margin when i hit an 8 iron with a 0.24 ratio. I just felt more natural before the patch (although the penalty was a little bit on the low side). But the combination of all three aspects of the swing felt just natural and produced beautiful different ballflights. Right now if you hit a ball with 1 outside/in and a mishit of 5 toe you barely can see the effect. Before the patch you had this gentle fade. These nuances are almost gone and guys with a straight swing plane are sort of "penalized". Ratio is so dominant. Being able to swing straight is a skill after all - and should be worth as much as having a good tempo.

[frank70]

Forgot to say...

Since you can't see the cursor's path or origin point, it makes more sense to have the path factor a little less (more movement needed).  If the path were too much of an influence, even slight deviations that you can't feel would curve the ball too much.  

 

It's much better to have the path requiring more pronounced movement so the player can at least sense what they are doing.   

That are very good points (anti-cheat from your previous post as well). But are the new ball flight physics nearer to real life than before patch? That's my question. If it is not i don't like it.

[Dazmaniac]

Dare i go down this road again...wth

I can hit all the the same shots with the new tour pro as i could with the old. The thing is for me is i have to be so precise i don't know if i can pull it off consistently. People are playing the new tour pro very well. Well, i've seen 1 guy boss something hang, and that's it.

I think there is a bigger question at issue and that's time to play a round. Am has been a blast because i can get a rd in 30 mins. For me, playing tour pro at the new difficulty has added even more time than before on tour pro which was 40-45 mins. Now, it's going to take me close to an hr on tour pro? I already heard complaints before about rds taking too long from some.

IMO, if 45 minute rounds are too long for some folks they are playing the wrong game or skill level.

Like anything, as the level of difficulty increases the time taken to complete it will be longer.

Would you expect a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle to be completed as quick as a 200 piece one?

Increasing skill level in the game means you need to take a bit more time and maybe concentrate a bit more than at lesser levels. By all means play quick at Tour Pro, but your scores will no doubt reflect this.