316 replies to this topic

[mebby]

could you please quote me on that comment?  implied might have been a better choice of words?   

LOL!  OK.  It's semantics.

[Mike Jones]

Don't let minutiae derail the thread!

 

You can imagine that creating and balancing as many swing types as we have is no easy task and everyone will have a different opinion on how well we achieved that, some with and some without bias depending on their preferred swing type.

 

Some swing types are easier in certain aspects of the game but more difficult in other aspects. So for example it may well be a more difficult to hit the ball straight at the higher levels with one swing type but then to balance, the short game is a little easier and so on. Players will discuss endlessly which is the best and most realistic but they are are all realistic in their own way. I only have to look at two different players in real golf to see that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, the swing types in PG are similar in this respect.

 

People sometimes quote the stats of the best players in the game to advance their own theories but TBH I discount the very best players' stats because like any video game it can be mastered more easily than the real sport and the experience of everyone else is more balanced.

[Sup?]

As a 3 clicker, I would like to see a smaller and most importantly, a stutter free swing meter.  I have an up to date home built gaming rig and I have tried all the suggested fixes.  It stutters.

 

I would like to add that it does stutter much less on PP's courses.  Winged Foot for example, it's a mess.

[Greensboronclion]

As someone who has played every swing for a significant period I want offer a few comments on each.

3C. What I like is it's much easier to chip and putt thank the other levels and I can sit back in my chair as I am just clicking. What I don't like is if you are off the slightest at the bottom and you are going left or right and as much as I don't like that it is realistic as that is what happens when you play IRL. What I would fix is ease just a hair the miss hit penalty and make the short game a tad bit harder.

MS. What I like is the immersion you feel playing it and I love the ability to shape my shots without using the shot shaper. What I don't like is the putting as it can be brutal on short putts on Pro and TP. What I would change is just make the putting a tad bit easier and leave the rest alone. MS is truly my favorite swing and the transition from Amateur to Pro is tough but very doable.

RTS-M. What I like about this swing is that no meter is needed and it is quite immersive also and very difficult to master. The putting is also easy IMHO compared to the above two as it's pretty hard to get your putt offline with it. What I don't like is the degree of difficulty from Amatuer to Pro as it can be very discouraging. What I would change is I would meet Oro and Amateur difficulty in the middle as if not very few will try it. I would also make the putting harder as it is just to easy now.

RTS-C. What I like is sitting in my chair and back from my 32 inch screen and playing and the comfort of it. What I don't like is how hard it is to advance from Amateur to Pro and how hard it is to putt at the higher levels. What I would change is like RTSM is make the transition from Amateur to Pro a tad easier and please lesson the severity of the putting at the higher levels. What I would make harder is the flop and the Pitch which are to easy. As for the pitch shot it is to easy on any swing type IMO.

Just my thoughts as I play them all and again to me MS is as close to perfect as any swing I have ever played but again that is just my opinion.

[JoeF]

bottom line is this is not real golf. It is a video game. a game controlled by mathmatics.. once one figures out the math it will be  very easy on what ever swing you use to replicate the small movements required to create a repeatable swing..Real world numbes will not be achieveable because in the real world mathmatics is not controlling the outcome...real world variables are never going to be replicated w/o some kind of randomizer. And I dont want to see that.. Every golf game I have ever played I have mastered and got bored with... This is the first one that I can honestly say has me by the cahonies....And that is because of rts with the mouse. I do not expect any one to come over to the dark side and share my opinion... But the fact is there will be some that do and those will be the people I choose to compete with. Whatever some one did to get 60 under  has no bearing on how I play the game.. I will continue to play the game as I see fit, and continue my push to tour pro rts mouse...how ever long it takes...

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree.  Real golf is all about mathematics.  There is a reason why golf is the most scientifically studied sport in the world - it's physics, which is pure mathematics.  The physics determines what happens to a golf ball when it is struck and while it interacts with the air and the ground.  In real life the math (physics) will be different for every shot you hit.  

 

In the past golf games used hard-coded algorithms to try and mimic how a golf ball would behave.  The use of those hard-coded algorithms meant that there was a certain repeat-ability in how shots reacted to a swing, the air and the ground, allowing one to figure out these predefined math equations.  As a result the games eventually became rote and stale.

 

What sets JNPG apart from all the previous golf games is that it uses real world, real time physics data (math) in determining the effect of your swing on the ball and the balls interaction with the virtual air and ground.  The ball responds in a very "real" manner.  No two shots will ever be the same.  You can't "figure out" the math because it will be different for each shot.  At best you can attain a level of experience that tells you what is "likely" to happen if your swing is on.  The game has become unpredictable, just like real golf.  That is why they have you by the cahones.

[Sliceapottomus]

Lmao.... ok joe really I'm great at math... got nothing to do with how i play golf in real life... this game takes very little physical skill once you figure out the math that is involved. This is why we shouldn't try to compare it to real life stats. I have always said you can use the pga stats as a guide but please, insisting that the game numbers replicate pga tour numbers is a stretch of reality...

[mebby]

I fully agree with Joe on this.  While I haven't sought out to decode any math in the game, I also believe that math alone cannot be used to play this game.  If I'm wrong then the game has fooled me into believing that it's based on real time physics.

 

You want to see a mathematical game in action, go play TGC.  There are already tutorials out there that give you the equations.  Follow them and you'll be deadly accurate.

 

If anyone believes that JNPG can be played even remotely similar to this then I'd love to see a narrated video of someone talking through the math, predicting the shots based on the math, and then taking their shot and proving that they are right.

[jt83]

Just place restrictions on yourself.

 

Never use the driver ...  never go into the overswing zone ...   do what ever makes the game the most realistic for you.

 

I restrict myself too.  If I hit a drive into what looks like a really rough area, often I'll re-hit.  I only use the flop shot in rough facing uphill.  Little things like that produce realistic hole scores.

[Skunky]

plain and simple to me.Computer golf will never be real golf,but having said that JNPG has replicated it better than any before it (INCLUDING LINKS)  IMHO! and i love links,played it forever.Updates may be slow,but  the game continues to improve with every one.And i think in the next 10 months we will all be talking about something completely different.do i want it now? yes.that dosent mean its gona happen right now.in the mean time lets have some fun. arguing over  whether  computer golf is realistic or not is totally useless.

[Greensboronclion]

When I played Links people had charts for each course and had figured out for the grid on every course they played and took a while to play there rounds. Then there were the guys like me that didn't have notes didn't worry about numbers on the greens and just gripped it and ripped it. All that work got them a few stokes less than guys like me but hell I sure as hell had fun. Now I am playing JNPG and I have the same mentality as I play fast and no charts and still am having fun. To me it's a game and a great one and the truth is I play real golf the same way as the only difference from twenty years ago is I now carry a Garmen GPS and to be honest I always guess the yardage before I look at the GPS and am pretty spot on with it. It's just a game folks and again a real good one.

[Sliceapottomus]

Ok guys you are entitled to your opinion. But nothing here is random. Lies are what they are no fair wai shots are ever on a divot or bad patch of mud or whatever. You are given a perfect world situation. Even in the rough weather it is right or wrong it is predictable. The game calculates your shot based on an equation...thats math folks... have you not heard of a practice range and woodys session that people use to figure out distances.... i mean realy not that much feel in pulling a club back till it reaches belt line and expecting the same out come over and over as long as you pullit back to the belt every time... just have to look at trackman combine scores. Guys are tearing that up... why because the act of making a repetitive shot on a video game is way easier than in real life.... yes this game gets as close as any to simulate the game of golf. And I love it for that. Once again the only guys that are trully simulating golf are the ones in their basements and garages. Hitting an actual ball with a real club. Ask those guys about. Phisics....lol wvery once in a while you really should get up from behind that cimputer and try out reality...

[mebby]

Ok guys you are entitled to your opinion. But nothing here is random. Lies are what they are no fair wai shots are ever on a divot or bad patch of mud or whatever. You are given a perfect world situation. Even in the rough weather it is right or wrong it is predictable. The game calculates your shot based on an equation...thats math folks... have you not heard of a practice range and woodys session that people use to figure out distances.... i mean realy not that much feel in pulling a club back till it reaches belt line and expecting the same out come over and over as long as you pullit back to the belt every time... just have to look at trackman combine scores. Guys are tearing that up... why because the act of making a repetitive shot on a video game is way easier than in real life.... yes this game gets as close as any to simulate the game of golf. And I love it for that. Once again the only guys that are trully simulating golf are the ones in their basements and garages. Hitting an actual ball with a real club. Ask those guys about. Phisics....lol wvery once in a while you really should get up from behind that cimputer and try out reality...

So put up a video and prove your point.

[Sliceapottomus]

Video of what.? I dont need to prove any thing to you... it boils down to do it on your own. plenty of swing tips posts out there.. yeah im gonna take time away from my life to prove what again .? Oh yeah i can barely break 90 in real life and on here i can shoot under par yeah just like real life...you guys make me laugh...

[Armand]

The ratio applies to chipping, flopping and pitching for RTS-M as well. So it is very, very difficult to get the ball perfectly straight off the blade. Actually i find that very realistic. Missing the ratio simulates hitting it thin or fat as well. That is well implemented and maybe could be even be pronounced a little, little bit more.

My main gripe with the short game is the too easy distance control - ratio of ballflight to roll doesn't pass my eye test - not enough roll because of too much spin on the ball. Maybe i am wrong though.

 

Frank, maybe my swing has changed and perhaps I'm hitting my chips a bit thin since changing from MSH to RTSH, but it seems to me there is more roll-out on the chips than in the early access builds.  I don't know exactly if/when things may have changed, but it seems they have.  Is my assumption correct that you haven't noticed any changes?  I'm not certain it's exactly the way I want it now, but the spin on chips from the rough seems to be less than it once was.

[mebby]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I do not think you can boil JNPG down to a math equation.

[frank70]

Frank, maybe my swing has changed and perhaps I'm hitting my chips a bit thin since changing from MSH to RTSH, but it seems to me there is more roll-out on the chips than in the early access builds.  I don't know exactly if/when things may have changed, but it seems they have.  Is my assumption correct that you haven't noticed any changes?  I'm not certain it's exactly the way I want it now, but the spin on chips from the rough seems to be less than it once was.

It might be a bit more. But still not enough imho. Actually there are situations where a real spin effect shouldn't even be there. Chips with little club head speed out of the rough should run way more. In JNPG those shots kind of die after the first hop (if you loft the club up).

 

No matter what changed: It's still not enough. Shortsiding yourself still is not a real problem. The numbers show it.

[frank70]

Don't let minutiae derail the thread!

 

You can imagine that creating and balancing as many swing types as we have is no easy task and everyone will have a different opinion on how well we achieved that, some with and some without bias depending on their preferred swing type.

 

Some swing types are easier in certain aspects of the game but more difficult in other aspects. So for example it may well be a more difficult to hit the ball straight at the higher levels with one swing type but then to balance, the short game is a little easier and so on. Players will discuss endlessly which is the best and most realistic but they are are all realistic in their own way. I only have to look at two different players in real golf to see that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, the swing types in PG are similar in this respect.

 

People sometimes quote the stats of the best players in the game to advance their own theories but TBH I discount the very best players' stats because like any video game it can be mastered more easily than the real sport and the experience of everyone else is more balanced.

Mike, i really love this game. There are very few days i am not starting up this wonderful game!

 

But ..... i beg to differ on some points you made in that post. It's quite possible that the difficulty of coding is the reason for some of those decisions (i have especially controller in mind). So, some things i am going to suggest might simply not be possible. In principle i would say, that making something unrealistically easy in one swing mechanic to counter the difficulty of other parts to balance things out between the different swing mechanics, isn't the right way to go. 

 

- Balancing of difficulty. I am a RTS-M player and at first look at the difficulty of the different shots of my swing mechanic. The long game is absolutely great and spot on!!! Every shot feels different. You really have to concentrate hard to get a good result. A big kudos for that - best i have ever seen!! Don't touch it! It's great!

 

Short game: Maybe it is more the physics (spin out of rough) than the easiness of execution, but getting up and down is simply too easy. And not only the best players post incredible good scrambling numbers. The best on the real PGA Tour get up and down 66% of the time. At OGT the 10-20 best players get up and down at a 80% clip (some even better). That's a big difference.

 

Bunker play: Here it gets even more lopsided. Best players PGA around 60%. OGT 80 - 85%. And again: Not only the best do that. Every OGT player who can shoot around par is scrambling wayyyy better .... as he should  .

 

Maybe pronouncing the thin/fat element when hitting off line or with a not perfect ratio could be pronounced. I think that would be quite realistic, because when scrambling, the perfect contact with the ball is vital. And way more spin penalty for the short shots could be tried out in the next patch to get more roll on the ball.

 

Putting: Putting straight with RTS-M is almost a given. It's very hard to start the ball off line. A straight 20 footer is almost a gimmie. That can't be right. I remember it to be really, really fickle before the implementation of RTS-M (MS that was). It doesn't have to be that hard. But as it is now, it's just not realistic.

 

So: Take your time and look at every shot of every swing mechanic in a vacuum. Is it realistic that way? Tweak it until you feel, it is realistic. Don't have comparisons with other swing mechanics in mind. Just look at the shot itself and at the numbers it produces (OGT really is a very good source for that). This may take some time and maybe it will lead to some temporarily disadvantage for certain swing mechanics. But it is the only way to go imho.

 

P.S.: Don't let the best players shoot -50!! A lot of that comes from scrambling and putting. Fix that and we will see better, more realistic scores. But still: Try to get to PGA numbers at the Tour Pro level. With the long game we are right on the money (RTS-M). Tweak the short game and you have the first game in the history that really can simulate playing like a Pro!!

[highfade]

Don't let minutiae derail the thread!

 

You can imagine that creating and balancing as many swing types as we have is no easy task and everyone will have a different opinion on how well we achieved that, some with and some without bias depending on their preferred swing type.

 

Some swing types are easier in certain aspects of the game but more difficult in other aspects. So for example it may well be a more difficult to hit the ball straight at the higher levels with one swing type but then to balance, the short game is a little easier and so on. Players will discuss endlessly which is the best and most realistic but they are are all realistic in their own way. I only have to look at two different players in real golf to see that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, the swing types in PG are similar in this respect.

 

People sometimes quote the stats of the best players in the game to advance their own theories but TBH I discount the very best players' stats because like any video game it can be mastered more easily than the real sport and the experience of everyone else is more balanced.

 

Mike

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

I'm afraid this thread has derailed big time. I never started this thread about the imbalances between swing types. As far as I'm concerned all those posts can be deleted, there is enough threads about that.

 

This thread is about getting the balance right for every swing type on its own. Once you have accomplished that you can start making small penalty tweaks to pull the different swing types in line.

 

Totally disagree with the highlighted part of your post. What you are saying is, if I play 3-C my weakness will be driving and my strength putting. So, the game decides that for me and for everyone?  If I want to be a better driver I should switch swing types?  

 

What should happen is that each shot type requires a certain skilled input from the player. e.g.

Tom might be quite good at snapping the faster meter for the full shots but suck at deciding when to snap at the slow moving putter meter.  Dick on the other hand is quite good at getting the flop and bunker shots just right.  There is a lot of ways to make each shot type more interesting and skill prone instead of just having a 3 speed meter for all shots but if you are happy that that is the best PG can offer then at least adjust the penalties to be balanced it out better.

 

My swingmeter with some options. If someone is interested I can post a link to download.

 

Options to name few:

Faster downswing than backswing.

Constant backswing accelerating downswing.

Sync downswing with the speed the accelerating backswing was traveling when you clicked. (works great for putting)

 

[Mike Jones]

Mike, i really love this game. There are very few days i am not starting up this wonderful game!

 

But ..... i beg to differ on some points you made in that post. It's quite possible that the difficulty of coding is the reason for some of those decisions (i have especially controller in mind). So, some things i am going to suggest might simply not be possible. In principle i would say, that making something unrealistically easy in one swing mechanic to counter the difficulty of other parts to balance things out between the different swing mechanics, isn't the right way to go. 

 

- Balancing of difficulty. I am a RTS-M player and at first look at the difficulty of the different shots of my swing mechanic. The long game is absolutely great and spot on!!! Every shot feels different. You really have to concentrate hard to get a good result. A big kudos for that - best i have ever seen!! Don't touch it! It's great!

 

Short game: Maybe it is more the physics (spin out of rough) than the easiness of execution, but getting up and down is simply too easy. And not only the best players post incredible good scrambling numbers. The best on the real PGA Tour get up and down 66% of the time. At OGT the 10-20 best players get up and down at a 80% clip (some even better). That's a big difference.

 

Bunker play: Here it gets even more lopsided. Best players PGA around 60%. OGT 80 - 85%. And again: Not only the best do that. Every OGT player who can shoot around par is scrambling wayyyy better .... as he should  .

 

Maybe pronouncing the thin/fat element when hitting off line or with a not perfect ratio could be pronounced. I think that would be quite realistic, because when scrambling, the perfect contact with the ball is vital. And way more spin penalty for the short shots could be tried out in the next patch to get more roll on the ball.

 

Putting: Putting straight with RTS-M is almost a given. It's very hard to start the ball off line. A straight 20 footer is almost a gimmie. That can't be right. I remember it to be really, really fickle before the implementation of RTS-M (MS that was). It doesn't have to be that hard. But as it is now, it's just not realistic.

 

So: Take your time and look at every shot of every swing mechanic in a vacuum. Is it realistic that way? Tweak it until you feel, it is realistic. Don't have comparisons with other swing mechanics in mind. Just look at the shot itself and at the numbers it produces (OGT really is a very good source for that). This may take some time and maybe it will lead to some temporarily disadvantage for certain swing mechanics. But it is the only way to go imho.

 

P.S.: Don't let the best players shoot -50!! A lot of that comes from scrambling and putting. Fix that and we will see better, more realistic scores. But still: Try to get to PGA numbers at the Tour Pro level. With the long game we are right on the money (RTS-M). Tweak the short game and you have the first game in the history that really can simulate playing like a Pro!!

I still maintain that the scoring on the PGA tour venues we have in game is a lot more realistic than the scores you see week in and week out on the OGT when third party courses are used. I think this is because non one wants to create courses with greens so difficult that people don't want to play the courses so you end up with way too many of those 20 footers you mention that are simply just straight. Check out the up and down % when Southampton is used versus when a course like Golden Meadows is used. There is a big difference due to the more realistic greens.

 

I'm not saying we have it just right yet but when you talk about the top 10 on the OGT tour, you really are talking about a tiny % of the total players who play the game. 

[frank70]

Great post highfade.

 

I went in the same direction with my post. Look at every shot of every swing mechanic on its own. If you are satisfied in terms of realism/difficulty, then you start comparing how all this plays out on the course with the different swing mechanics. Actually i think that if you go down that road, there won't have to be that big tweaks afterwards.

 

Evolving the 3-click is a great idea. If i compare it to RTS-M, i think 3-click is lacking a bit the rhythm element that is so vital for the RTS-M (and for real golf). You don't have to feel when to click .... you have to see, when to click. The meter is rather slow, therefore the snap penalty on higher difficulty levels has to be as harsh.

The only viable solution is see is to speed the meter up and get more leniant with the penalty. That would also produce a greater variety of shot outcomes.