|
Post by SmilingGoats on Oct 28, 2018 16:13:53 GMT -5
Do you have the split on PC for people using mouse / controller Jeff? Because, given the documented mouse issues in 19, that might bump PC up close to PS4 I suspect for controller users?
No...there is not data on controller or controller type. Sure wish there was...would save us a lot of headache.
|
|
|
Post by daddyjules on Oct 28, 2018 18:26:24 GMT -5
Here are the Masters Clubs numbers: PS4 - Median Accuracy (0.044166312), Average Percentage of Perfect Downswings - 77% XB1 - Median Accuracy (0.041543424), Average Percentage of Perfect Downswings - 46.86%% Steam - Median Accuracy (0.039952909), Average Percentage of Perfect Downswings - 68% There are more than twice as many PS4 rounds represented than XB1 rounds and 4X as many PC rounds in those numbers. this is hard to stomach being an xbox player not much we can do really. Just laugh at the ps4 users with scores worse than ours perhaps?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 19:21:26 GMT -5
That is quite a difference between the PS and Xbox. Works for me I like the challenge. If I owned a PS and found this out I would buy a Xbox.
Love the grind of golf. If I start playing to well I get nervous I will get bored.
I hit 94 % of greens at Spyglass Tour today for my sim society and shot 2 under. Probably the best tee to green I have played so far . Problem was I missed so many putts by the smallest of margins. Now next round I will miss more greens but sink more putts. That's golf.
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Oct 28, 2018 19:36:43 GMT -5
Putting on my nerd hat... As a pharmacist, I am exposed to a lot of statistical data. Much of it is sound and support claims, but sometimes the authors will gloss over the flaws in data and make claims that aren’t entirely supported by said statistical analysis. I applaud Mr. Malone’s efforts and analysis, and I will admit there is a noted difference in the two groups. He also supports the difference in mean scores is statistically significant, suggesting the PS4 is easier than PC and XB1. We run into a number of issues here. First, the need to combine the PC and XB1 users into a single group, removing the possibility of the much needed 3-way comparison. The question being asked is really “Does the PS4 produce better scores than the combination of PC and XB1 on St. Bedes with Master clubs?”, a considerably different query than “Is the PS4 the easiest platform for TGC?” In order to answer this question, we would need equally large populations of all players on all 3 platforms, with 3 data sets. The other issue here, that Larry and others have addressed, is that while the difference is statistically significant, real world significance (in the medical world, we call it clinical significance - the difference may be statistically significant, but the clinical difference is too small to be considered useful) is really not there. The data show a mean advantage of 1 to 1.5 strokes per round for the PS4 (again, on this particular course, with Master clubs). While this may seem important enough (a one stroke win is still a win), there also exists the data supported fact that the outliers on the PS4 data score worse than those on the other two platforms, suggesting that the PS4 is harder for the least skilled golfers. Again, this could be due to the considerable difference in size between the groups (more data points yields more outliers). In order to truly answer the question, we would need a broader scope of users, across al three platforms, with a wider breadth of course difficulty. As with many medical studies, this experiment may not fully answer the initial question, but it does give rise to the need for further examination, with larger study groups that have more heterogeneity within the groups and give a clearer answer. Then again, the presented data pretty much shows no clear advantage for any one platform, and that we should stop worrying about it, and play the damn game. Nerd hat off. Commence with the nerd beatdown. Putting my nerd hat on...first the distributions should be tested to see if they are normal...if they are non-normal data (which they probably are given a skew to the higher side of scores), then a T-test is not a valid comparator. You would either need to transform the data (with the same transformation), and then use a T-test is a valid comparator. Otherwise, you should use a Wilcoxian test for non-normal data (medians instead of means), and see if it's above or below the alpha value of 0.05 to see if significantly different.
|
|
|
Post by LocoOnTheSoco on Oct 28, 2018 20:09:10 GMT -5
Here are the Masters Clubs numbers: PS4 - Median Accuracy (0.044166312), Average Percentage of Perfect Downswings - 77% XB1 - Median Accuracy (0.041543424), Average Percentage of Perfect Downswings - 46.86%% Steam - Median Accuracy (0.039952909), Average Percentage of Perfect Downswings - 68% There are more than twice as many PS4 rounds represented than XB1 rounds and 4X as many PC rounds in those numbers. Wow, that's not even remotely close. Disheartening indeed.At least I know it's not all in my head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 20:26:28 GMT -5
Well this just helps my narcissism...
Soooooo. XBone players should be allowed to use Pro clubs, yeah???
😂
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Oct 28, 2018 20:30:42 GMT -5
Well this just helps my narcissism... Soooooo. XBone players should be allowed to use Pro clubs, yeah??? 😂 You sure can. Enjoy the CC tours
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 20:31:58 GMT -5
Nah....
|
|
|
Post by lawman1474 on Oct 28, 2018 21:15:01 GMT -5
What I get from this stat is that Xbox players aren't that good. 😄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 1:25:40 GMT -5
Putting my nerd hat on...first the distributions should be tested to see if they are normal...if they are non-normal data (which they probably are given a skew to the higher side of scores), then a T-test is not a valid comparator. You would either need to transform the data (with the same transformation), and then use a T-test is a valid comparator. Otherwise, you should use a Wilcoxian test for non-normal data (medians instead of means), and see if it's above or below the alpha value of 0.05 to see if significantly different. You're right, I was being a lazy barsteward, there's definitely a right skew, but I thought 'meh, ain't too bad, the outliers probably have Parkinson's or something' when I saw the histogram lol: That said,the t-test was so significant (you can tell from eyeballing tbh that there's a significant difference between PS4 and other platforms, and it's the PS4 players with the really high scores anyway) that any comparison would end up being significant enough. And it was - I put in the data for an unpaired Wilcoxon rank sum test and the p value was 7.098137e-15 so yeah, conclusion is the same
|
|
|
Post by itsmb8 on Oct 29, 2018 1:50:21 GMT -5
Personally, I think the only way you could really test it is if you had a huge number of players play a round on PS4 and then another on Xbox. Right now the stats just say the PS4 players are better on average, and it doesn't really answer the question on if the PS4 itself is better.
I played 2 on Xbox and now play 2019 on PS4 and I think PS4 is easier, but its still two entirely different games that were tested. The PS4 is PROBABLY easier, but you cant definitively get an answer unless its tested how i said above, which will never happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2018 2:00:43 GMT -5
Personally, I think the only way you could really test it is if you had a huge number of players play a round on PS4 and then another on Xbox. Right now the stats just say the PS4 players are better on average, and it doesn't really answer the question on if the PS4 itself is better. . While I agree the same sample playing on all platforms would be the ultimate method, it's not necessary when the results are as significant as they are. With the large sample sizes, to ignore the scoring difference (and especially the tempo difference posted by Jeff) means you have to postulate that there's there's a fundamental difference in the ability to move a stick rhythmically up and down, between people who game on a PS4 versus those who game on either of the other 2 platforms. There's no way for example that there's a correlation between people who purchase an xbox and people who have poor rhythm / controller stick movement skills.
|
|
|
Post by gordyberry on Oct 29, 2018 2:13:20 GMT -5
If I were to try XBOX, I know my scores would get significantly worse since I'd probably have to learn how to swing with the right analog. What am I, a savage?
|
|
|
Post by echomike2 on Oct 29, 2018 2:43:19 GMT -5
I use PS4 and I still *&$@ TGC2 ave (71) +/- 160 rounds, in the real world, really good, in TGC really bad. (player clubs)
|
|
|
Post by IGolfBad on Oct 29, 2018 5:38:46 GMT -5
Putting on my nerd hat... As a pharmacist, I am exposed to a lot of statistical data. Much of it is sound and support claims, but sometimes the authors will gloss over the flaws in data and make claims that aren’t entirely supported by said statistical analysis. I applaud Mr. Malone’s efforts and analysis, and I will admit there is a noted difference in the two groups. He also supports the difference in mean scores is statistically significant, suggesting the PS4 is easier than PC and XB1. We run into a number of issues here. First, the need to combine the PC and XB1 users into a single group, removing the possibility of the much needed 3-way comparison. The question being asked is really “Does the PS4 produce better scores than the combination of PC and XB1 on St. Bedes with Master clubs?”, a considerably different query than “Is the PS4 the easiest platform for TGC?” In order to answer this question, we would need equally large populations of all players on all 3 platforms, with 3 data sets. The other issue here, that Larry and others have addressed, is that while the difference is statistically significant, real world significance (in the medical world, we call it clinical significance - the difference may be statistically significant, but the clinical difference is too small to be considered useful) is really not there. The data show a mean advantage of 1 to 1.5 strokes per round for the PS4 (again, on this particular course, with Master clubs). While this may seem important enough (a one stroke win is still a win), there also exists the data supported fact that the outliers on the PS4 data score worse than those on the other two platforms, suggesting that the PS4 is harder for the least skilled golfers. Again, this could be due to the considerable difference in size between the groups (more data points yields more outliers). In order to truly answer the question, we would need a broader scope of users, across al three platforms, with a wider breadth of course difficulty. As with many medical studies, this experiment may not fully answer the initial question, but it does give rise to the need for further examination, with larger study groups that have more heterogeneity within the groups and give a clearer answer. Then again, the presented data pretty much shows no clear advantage for any one platform, and that we should stop worrying about it, and play the damn game. Nerd hat off. Commence with the nerd beatdown. Putting my nerd hat on...first the distributions should be tested to see if they are normal...if they are non-normal data (which they probably are given a skew to the higher side of scores), then a T-test is not a valid comparator. You would either need to transform the data (with the same transformation), and then use a T-test is a valid comparator. Otherwise, you should use a Wilcoxian test for non-normal data (medians instead of means), and see if it's above or below the alpha value of 0.05 to see if significantly different. I see your nerd hat is bigger than mine 🤓
|
|