316 replies to this topic

[frank70]

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. 

You are absolutely right, that the chosen course plays a role. But if you look at the stats over a whole season, very low putting numbers and very high scrambling conversions still stand out. And we play a good amount of real courses as well.

 

Putting straight should still involve some skill. As every other shot in the game does. A wrong swing plane or a heel/toe hit should pull or push the putt ever so slightly. Could be a big difference on 10-20 footers. Not so much on shorter ones - which would be perfect.

 

I am not just talking about the Top 10 % players. When you look at the scrambling stats at OGT (through every difficulty level) around 200 guys scramble better than the PGA Tour average. That are almost all guys who tee it up regularly at OGT. 120 guys scramble better than the best scrambler on the PGA Tour.

Greenside Bunkers: 150 players at OGT were better than the best on the PGA Tour (Sean O'Hair 65%). 250 were better than the PGA Tour average that is around 50%.

 

That's not only the choice of courses imho. The difficulty level of the scrambling shots and the spin effect you can get on the ball with these scrambling shots play a big part on this. Maybe a slight pronounciation of thin/fat and more roll on the greens can do the trick. That wouldn't be artificial unfair. It would reflect the difficulty of those shots in real life.

 

Don't get me wrong Mike: This game is wonderful! But certain aspects of it are not yet spot on. And considering scrambling difficulty, they are obvious to see. By eye test and by the numbers.

 

It's not abou elitism at all. It is about immersion and realism. Think about it: Is going to a tugged pin in the game triggering the same thinking process in you head, as if you are playing real golf? I bet it does not. You were a pro, you are the best guy to judge that.

Do you play the ball purposely in the weed or in the greenside bunker on 3-shot Par 5s in real life?  Maybe sometimes. But in the game most players are doing exactly that everytime cause they know they get up and down at a 80% clip. Which yields a way bigger chance to make birdie than laying up and attacking the pin with a wedge.

 

A change in difficulty of the scrambling shots would take this game to another level of realism. That the scores and stats would fall in line is only a consequence, not the goal.

[johnmeyer]

I would also say its not purely the courses. When looking at the stats generated by simulator players, youll see that they are far more in line with real life, particularly the scrambling and putting stats. This leads me to the conclusion that its not the courses, or the physics, but the input method, ie when having to pitch, chip and putt with real clubs and balls its still pretty challenging to say the least.

 

Yes there are still some physics flaws, the rollouts for high lofted pitches and chips is too short, with them stopping far far too quickly at times, the lie penalties in the rough aren't quite right, not enough spin penalty perhaps,  but generally it does play very realistically when taking into account were all hitting from perfect conditions so generating better shot data than we would do on the course. 

 

I dont know how best to do it, but some tweaks to those 2 physics issues would it seem both increase the realism for the sim side of things even further and also help towards the issues frank is highlighting too. Would possibly then need to find a way make hitting less than full power a bit more tricky for mouse input methods, as again in real golf no one likes not having a full shot, those awkward inbetween yardages are the toughest. This is prob true of any of the RT control methods too, but not 3C. 

[frank70]

@johnmeyer

 

i am trying to avoid partial shots with RTS-M like the plague. At least when it comes to normal swing shots. With the ratio it's very hard to judge the needed swing pace or the aim adjustement needed to pull it off.

[Greensboronclion]

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. 

 

 

This is a great point Mike and I never thought that way about the 3rd party course.  A classic example of a an in game course is Bethesda where the greens are pretty tough and much harder to read and yes Southampton.  We do have a lot of flatter greens with the 3rd party courses and wish the greens would be a lot tougher as on some course just like in real life the Greens are the defense of the course.  Great Point.

[stopits here]

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.

I could do that for you, using beginner mode 3 click and dial every shot to within inches of the flag.

[stopits here]

You are absolutely right, that the chosen course plays a role. But if you look at the stats over a whole season, very low putting numbers and very high scrambling conversions still stand out. And we play a good amount of real courses as well.

 

Putting straight should still involve some skill. As every other shot in the game does. A wrong swing plane or a heel/toe hit should pull or push the putt ever so slightly. Could be a big difference on 10-20 footers. Not so much on shorter ones - which would be perfect.

 

I am not just talking about the Top 10 % players. When you look at the scrambling stats at OGT (through every difficulty level) around 200 guys scramble better than the PGA Tour average. That are almost all guys who tee it up regularly at OGT. 120 guys scramble better than the best scrambler on the PGA Tour.

Greenside Bunkers: 150 players at OGT were better than the best on the PGA Tour (Sean O'Hair 65%). 250 were better than the PGA Tour average that is around 50%.

 

That's not only the choice of courses imho. The difficulty level of the scrambling shots and the spin effect you can get on the ball with these scrambling shots play a big part on this. Maybe a slight pronounciation of thin/fat and more roll on the greens can do the trick. That wouldn't be artificial unfair. It would reflect the difficulty of those shots in real life.

 

Don't get me wrong Mike: This game is wonderful! But certain aspects of it are not yet spot on. And considering scrambling difficulty, they are obvious to see. By eye test and by the numbers.

 

It's not abou elitism at all. It is about immersion and realism. Think about it: Is going to a tugged pin in the game triggering the same thinking process in you head, as if you are playing real golf? I bet it does not. You were a pro, you are the best guy to judge that.

Do you play the ball purposely in the weed or in the greenside bunker on 3-shot Par 5s in real life?  Maybe sometimes. But in the game most players are doing exactly that everytime cause they know they get up and down at a 80% clip. Which yields a way bigger chance to make birdie than laying up and attacking the pin with a wedge.

 

A change in difficulty of the scrambling shots would take this game to another level of realism. That the scores and stats would fall in line is only a consequence, not the goal.

Yes but this is a game mate, EVERY golf game ever made for PC/console have the same "problem" if you want to call it a problem, i don't, this is a game we play with a controller/mouse, it will never be the same as real life golf, so why should the scoring?.

[frank70]

Yes but this is a game mate, EVERY golf game ever made for PC/console have the same "problem" if you want to call it a problem, i don't, this is a game we play with a controller/mouse, it will never be the same as real life golf, so why should the scoring?.

Because it would be an even better simulation then?

 

"It has ever been that way" simply isn't a good enough of an argument. If software development were so narrowminded we still would be playing "Leaderboard" on the C64.

[mebby]

I could do that for you, using beginner mode 3 click and dial every shot to within inches of the flag.

OK.  Be sure to do it on a course with at least breezy winds and not the range.  That way we can see you predict distances within a inch or two for elevation changes, wind, etc.  Also, hit some shots from the rough so we can see you mathematically calculate the impact of spin and power loss.

 

I'd like for you to narrate the video as you go along and call out the math that you're applying to the game.  

[Mike Jones]

I could do that for you, using beginner mode 3 click and dial every shot to within inches of the flag.

Bold statement - can you back it up at say a track like Chicago Oaks?  

[mebby]

Bold statement - can you back it up at say a track like Chicago Oaks?  

Or Crystal Pines.  Something with some moderate elevation change.  Chicago Oaks also has that on a few holes.  I'm also curious to see this math works out on non-flat lies (fairway or not - don't care) which Crystal Pines has a lot of.

[DivotMaker]

Putting straight should still involve some skill. As every other shot in the game does. A wrong swing plane or a heel/toe hit should pull or push the putt ever so slightly. Could be a big difference on 10-20 footers. Not so much on shorter ones - which would be perfect.

 

Gotta say Frank, I am seeing an uptick in putting challenge in RTSC.....in the PGA Merion event, I missed 4 easy birdie putts by not focusing on the putting stroke.....I think that part of the challenge for RTSC is spot on.

[mebby]

Gotta say Frank, I am seeing an uptick in putting challenge in RTSC.....in the PGA Merion event, I missed 4 easy birdie putts by not focusing on the putting stroke.....I think that part of the challenge for RTSC is spot on.

I would agree.  I think they must have tweaked something in the short game in the last update.  I've noticed that putting is a feeling pretty good (in a sick way) right now.  They also made the blast shot a little more difficult as well.

 

Either that or my game is just falling apart.  I can't score for squat at the moment.  And I'm loving it!

[frank70]

I meant that (putting straight) exclusively for RTS-M, guys.

[DivotMaker]

I meant that (putting straight) exclusively for RTS-M, guys.

 

Well, there is one of those areas that the challenge is different.....

[stopits here]

Bold statement - can you back it up at say a track like Chicago Oaks?  

IDK ill give it a go.

[Greensboronclion]

Been practicing a lot with RTS-M and to be honest I have never broke 80 in an event at Pro level but been working hard at it and today played my best round ever at Illinois with a +1  72 which I bogied the last hole.  I have got to admit it was quite fun and being somebody who plays all the swings I would say it was probably the most enjoyable round I have had in the year and half playing this game.  Still think the putting is to easy at RTSM but great fun.  As Divot says above with RTSC that the putting seems harder this week I always have felt that the Controller was as tough to putt with as I have ever played in video golf.  Again great fun today and love the game.

[stopits here]

IDK ill give it a go.

OK i few inches may have been a bit optimistic by me will a few feet do?

[mebby]

OK i few inches may have been a bit optimistic by me will a few feet do?

Fine by me.  If you can predict your shot (using math) to within a 3 feet consistently, from a variety of surfaces (fairway, rough, bunker, deep rough) and a variety of winds and elevation changes then I'll believe you.  Until then I'm saying that this game cannot be broken down to a mathematical equation.

 

I'm betting you can't even get it to within 10 feet consistently.  Turn mulligans on or do a practice round so you can repeat the same shot multiple times.  Be sure to notice that from the rough your spin and power loss % will change each time so get your calculator out.

[frank70]

Well, there is one of those areas that the challenge is different.....

Yeah, but easy putting shouldn't even out easier ballstriking, right? In a perfect world both should be almost evenly difficult, no matter what swing method you use.

[SirGrassCutter]

The devs haven't touched the ball physics or the swing mechanics for months. What are you even talking about. The last patches concentrated on other parts of the game.

 

Said by the 10% I am talking about.  I rest my case.