Server tunings update 2.

  • 742 Replies
  • 48817 Views

gtgud

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2018, 05:09:38 PM »
Regarding the new physics settings...

Is there a concrete reason why the ball physics used in TGC2 weren't just carried over into the new game? I'm assuming there is some developmental complication that prevented it? That was a really, really good mech for a golf game IMO, probably the best I've played, so I'm just wondering why.

Again, just my opinion, but I think you guys could/may have saved a ton of time and worry by simply carrying those physics over and incorporating it with the new swing. I'll guess that wasn't feasible?...I'm no expert.

Anyway, appreciate the effort, but still believe the ball physics from your prior release were superior to this version, respectfully.

The physics in the previous game were not realistic, full stop.

I understand that players got used to the game. But, ideally, we want the game to look like golf, as near as possible.

Leadbelly

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2708
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2018, 05:18:46 PM »
The flop shot was better before the server side update in my opinion.

Kelson

  • *
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2018, 05:19:09 PM »
Regarding the new physics settings...

Is there a concrete reason why the ball physics used in TGC2 weren't just carried over into the new game? I'm assuming there is some developmental complication that prevented it? That was a really, really good mech for a golf game IMO, probably the best I've played, so I'm just wondering why.

Again, just my opinion, but I think you guys could/may have saved a ton of time and worry by simply carrying those physics over and incorporating it with the new swing. I'll guess that wasn't feasible?...I'm no expert.

Anyway, appreciate the effort, but still believe the ball physics from your prior release were superior to this version, respectfully.

The physics in the previous game were not realistic, full stop.

I understand that players got used to the game. But, ideally, we want the game to look like golf, as near as possible.

This. In my opinion, the physics were a bit over the top in previous versions. I'm happy with more realistic settings.
Designer Status: Unpublished
Reason: A Horse is a Horse of Course, of Course Course is not a valid name.

gtgud

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2018, 05:20:07 PM »
The flop shot was better before the server side update in my opinion.

Oh, no... Did they go and add more spin to the already well overpowered Flop shot?

(I haven't had a chance to play since today's update)

Doyley

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2292
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2018, 05:25:16 PM »
I still think balls that roll into (or bounce and roll) in bunkers and appear to be sitting up perfectly should have much higher percentages (as in closer to 100%).  The worst bunker percentages should be left for plugged balls/balls that don't bounce at all.

Everyone remembers Tiger's shot from the bunker on 18 at the Canadian Open - he had 218 yards and hit a 6i and flew it over water on to the green - in no way am I saying we should hit 6i's that far - but I am saying that the percentages we get when given a good lie are still too penalizing.  Most players/commentators on TV are happy when a ball rolls out of the rough into a bunker.  I think most bunker lies should be in the 85-95 range if they just roll in nicely.

Heavy rough is good as is I think - but I think it's on designers to use more light rough and save the heavy rough for off course areas - especially for non-major type setups/courses.  This could be helped by HB providing a first cut texture that would replace the light rough bands most designers use to make their fairways look tidy.  That would free up the option to use light rough as the main base of rough or any combo of light/heavy.  Most municipal courses don't have heavy rough and I could see this being used much better in TGC2019 if designers had a first cut border and 2 rough options beyond that.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 05:27:18 PM by Doyley »

McBogga

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4727
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2018, 05:35:37 PM »
The yardages of the club's are way off. E.g. shortest pitch is 57 yds and the 3 wood is 243 yds which on the master clubs was 254 yds. I hit my 3 wood in real life more than 243 yards.
243 is on par with the PGA tour average with 3w. More yardage can be had by replacing it with a 2w in your bag.

That trackman data is about 5 years old... And why is only driver carry something different then? 250 is more true to life for the "3W".

And that 2W, why not just call them fairway woods or "fairways" like the industry does nowadays? The 2W is what? A 13.5 deg fairway?



Henry Hatch

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 407
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2018, 05:38:43 PM »
I agree with your comments on bunker lies. Even if a ball hits a bunker on the fly it is not likely the ball would get plugged with the trajectory of a driver.

CuseHokie

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2018, 05:41:15 PM »
I know this won't happen but I'm still an advocate for having a slew of wedges to choose from.

46/48/50/52/54/56/58/60/62/64

I believe today, they are 45/50/55/60?  So if I skip a gap wedge, I have to cover 10 degrees between PW and SW?

Being able to choose a 46* PW, 52* SW, and a 58* lob wedge would allow better coverage.  I can't imagine this would be a huge change... just some additional tables of values...
PSN:  CuseHokie

darvaan

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2018, 05:44:37 PM »
Posted by: CuseHokie
« on: Today at 05:41:15 PM »
Insert Quote

I know this won't happen but I'm still an advocate for having a slew of wedges to choose from.

46/48/50/52/54/56/58/60/62/64

I believe today, they are 45/50/55/60?  So if I skip a gap wedge, I have to cover 10 degrees between PW and SW?

Being able to choose a 46* PW, 52* SW, and a 58* lob wedge would allow better coverage.  I can't imagine this would be a huge change... just some additional tables of values...


I'd like something like this myself in future versions, I'd prefer to carry a 48,54,60 so I can have an extra long iron.

GM of Masochist Sim Club(PS4) - All Aids Off on the finest PGA/RCR courses

Leadbelly

  • *
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2708
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2018, 05:45:07 PM »
The flop shot was better before the server side update in my opinion.

Oh, no... Did they go and add more spin to the already well overpowered Flop shot?

(I haven't had a chance to play since today's update)

Well they fly farther then before and you cant finesse them with the loft box much now. You can use a very slow backswing with a perfect downswing, to keep them straight and knock some distance off though for those short shots.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 06:03:35 PM by Leadbelly »

chrashbird

  • *
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2018, 05:55:19 PM »
I eat high spinning shots for breakfast.  Break out those pitch shots fellas.

Welcome back after 4 years away.

McBogga

  • *
  • GroupMember
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4727
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2018, 05:55:29 PM »
I still think balls that roll into (or bounce and roll) in bunkers and appear to be sitting up perfectly should have much higher percentages (as in closer to 100%).  The worst bunker percentages should be left for plugged balls/balls that don't bounce at all.

Everyone remembers Tiger's shot from the bunker on 18 at the Canadian Open - he had 218 yards and hit a 6i and flew it over water on to the green - in no way am I saying we should hit 6i's that far - but I am saying that the percentages we get when given a good lie are still too penalizing.  Most players/commentators on TV are happy when a ball rolls out of the rough into a bunker.  I think most bunker lies should be in the 85-95 range if they just roll in nicely.

Heavy rough is good as is I think - but I think it's on designers to use more light rough and save the heavy rough for off course areas - especially for non-major type setups/courses.  This could be helped by HB providing a first cut texture that would replace the light rough bands most designers use to make their fairways look tidy.  That would free up the option to use light rough as the main base of rough or any combo of light/heavy.  Most municipal courses don't have heavy rough and I could see this being used much better in TGC2019 if designers had a first cut border and 2 rough options beyond that.

Great comments, Doyley.

Overall I think the trajectories and spins have gone backwards on average, if anything.

The short Irons and wedges are now back into a more floaty flight, apexing maybe 10 feet to high. They looked really great before the update. I enjoyed the flight of the longer clubs as well, even if it is more of a traditional flight rather than the modern equipment one. For the woods and long irons the post update trajectories are probably closer to the real thing, but the earlier ones looked better.

Spin is different, not nessecarily better. Very little difference in spin response across green softness and speeds I feel after trying it out in designer. The softness and speed seems to affect only first bounce. Disappointed that all wedges are drop and stop over all green types instead of having appropriate responses. Also lofting does not do much, adding max a couple of feet of spin, not even pulling the ball back to its landing spot. Wind seems to be the main factor deciding how the ball behaves upon landing. Partly the floaty flight is to blame here but also the lack of spin control given to the player.

Flop shots are back to being even more broken, similar to TGC1. THIS is not how a flop works, HB! That type of spin happens out of fairly firm green-side bunkers only. A flop does not spin back in the normal case, even from the fairway. Out of rough it just does not happen because there is grass between the club and ball to add to the glancing blow that is delivered. It is broken, period.

For bunker penalties. You know when the ball plugs, because you put out that graphic asset when it happens, but it seems that the lie percentages are not connected to this event - why not? A plugged lie and a good lie in a bunker is massively different, so why not treat them that way? A good bunker lie should not have a huge penalty - UNLESS the player is trying to chip or pitch out of there...

It seems that the effect of the fast backswing boost has been nerfed? Why? It was a great risk reward mechanic that fitted great with no loft box play. Also the added spin to the wedges with a fast backswing is not much. USE THIS MECHANIC more, it has great potential. Driver was great before the update, and using it as a means for the player to put some serious zip on the ball is just good game design as long as either hitting it perfect or 95% are real possibilities so it is not just automatic when you want to hit one like that.

Overall, different - not better - for me.


random scotsman

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2018, 05:55:44 PM »
Rough/Sand play is too penalizing. Rough/Sand should really only affect your spin/loft. It shouldn't affect the distance as much.

For Example: Tiger was terrible off the tee this year, but one of the best GIR.

I really do not want to worry about 60% rough play every time you go into the rough... It should only affect your ability to STOP the ball where you want.
hi phil

Shardak

  • *
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2018, 06:01:59 PM »
The yardages of the club's are way off. E.g. shortest pitch is 57 yds and the 3 wood is 243 yds which on the master clubs was 254 yds. I hit my 3 wood in real life more than 243 yards.
243 is on par with the PGA tour average with 3w. More yardage can be had by replacing it with a 2w in your bag.

That trackman data is about 5 years old... And why is only driver carry something different then? 250 is more true to life for the "3W".

And that 2W, why not just call them fairway woods or "fairways" like the industry does nowadays? The 2W is what? A 13.5 deg fairway?

The trackman data is from 2017, not 5 years ago. But even so, it hasnt changed much in 5 years.

https://blog.trackmangolf.com/2017-pga-lpga-tour-avg/


And for the 2 wood stuff, I have no idea what you are trying to say.  A 2-wood is a 2-wood, abbreviated "2w".  Its typically between 12-15 degrees of loft, and is very rarely seen nowadays.  If you want to call it a fairway wood, thats fine.  In the bag-setup screen you will see it labeled "2w", right between 1w and 3w!


I think the game plays really well now, thumbs up to HB.


BSmooth13

  • *
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
« Reply #44 on: October 12, 2018, 06:11:05 PM »
The physics in the previous game were not realistic, full stop.
Agree to disagree, then

 

space-cash