|
|
Post by tastegw on Jul 24, 2017 22:48:03 GMT -5
Player A:. Obvious zero axis device
Players B, E, G, H, I, J: Axis manipulation, each with a different setting, but a setting that does not allow terrible shots.
Players C and D: altered axis but intention missing either left or right knowing the outcome before hand
Player F: no clue, no pattern.
These are just my hypothesis.
If the API could prove them right, I'd ban all but Player F
|
|
|
|
Post by miacanes12 on Jul 24, 2017 22:50:29 GMT -5
I just finished the pga magnolia event at -38, current leader, and i was hittin em pretty good, would you care to show my chart, i dont care if everyone knows it is mine, but it would be bery interesting to see because when I was playing I started out hitting everything to the left, and then I started to dial in my tempo and swing line and for awhile i was near the center playing great.
|
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Jul 24, 2017 22:50:57 GMT -5
Just a couple of follow up questions so that people get an understanding of the kind of feedback we want. 1) You say that the rest should get a warning. Should we allow these rounds to stand? Should we dq the one round with the warning? What if the rounds continue to look like this? 2) You say Player F is fine...he had 4 shots with no deviation at all whereas player H only had 3. Why do you find Player F to be more acceptable? 1) I think that to be consistent with the natural "innocent until proven guilty" law, that rounds should stand, but guilty parties be given a hefty penalty of a ban of numerous months, a hefty decrease in money earned (kind of like a "fine") and possibly an asterisk or some sort of label on display as "past cheater." 2) I only find player F to be more acceptable because of the greater amount of dispersion. I think any member with more than 1-2 "inside red zone" shots per round should be placed on warning, and 4-5 "inside orange zone" shots per round. Player F still had 4 perfect straights where the 19 clean examples had 0. This would need to be flagged for fixing...its possible in this example they play on the up and up, but when a perfect shot is needed they tweak/macro/change something to ensure a perfect outcome All examples here show an advantage over the clean population in one form or another. All would be warned or DQ'd and be presented with the message to work with TGCTours to fix or be banned |
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Jul 24, 2017 22:51:42 GMT -5
PLayer F has four perfect shots that apparently are NOT at 75 yards or less. Four perfect shots are way too many. I would say that this person has the DPI too low and is a perfect example of raising it a bit would fix this person quite nicely without being illegal. Probably another 300-400 dpi. Honestly, some of these charts look similar to a few rounds I had in the first few weeks of TGC 2 when I was shooting tournaments with four different DPIs, one for each round to get data like this. Relooking at these graphs I can see where most all would have some questions, for various reason. For me it isn't so much about the number of shots right or left of premium but the over all average. Most of these averages are around .01 or less. I saw Jeff whiteline a shot the other day from 205 yards. His one one of the round but it is very possible. It was quite the shot too, almost holed it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 0:12:48 GMT -5
I cannot quantify this properly. I have to begin with that. I would need to see what the cone looks like in game for each of these typical ranges to gauge what these truly translate to. I don't know if these numbers play in a truly linear path from 0 to .035 or is it based off of some logarithmic measure which makes it very easy to deviate from dead center but harder and harder (user based obviously) to get to the outside blue lines on the edges. I would really have to see what every shot corresponds to vs a side by side show of their rounds. Is it possible to know on shot #x or shot #yy they hit .01674xxx to the right of center? If so, then I could record a round and find that I played and run the full shots side by side in numerical values to what is seen on screen. Obviously you will likely be inundate with these requests, so I would like at some point, if possible, side by side of what shots of x to y range look like on screen.
A = obviously this shouldn't be allowed or else why are we even debating this?
B = 6/31 shots are virtually deadlined. Also is the most prominent. To me this is the norm for this persons' setup and the deviations are the result of whatever their input is. All shots are .02 or less, so they are basically within halfway to the edgee of the red cone at their very worst. Not allowed. Future rounds should be looked at at some kind of regular basis.
C = This looks like setting up deviations to avoid the center/deadline. To have so many shots in the exact range of .02 to .0225 (23/29) and all other shots just one deviations to the left or right with NOTHING outside of it cannot be allowed, IMO.
D = I would tend to think there is something restricting this players' shots as there is a narrow range and no deviations. I would not accept this round, but this one actually is where it starts to be the grey are for me because there may be players out there who might be that exacting within a round. If this were their norm over many rounds/tournaments and the deviations are still near zero or a low % then the cumulative data would be more clear.
E = I would think that this would be one of my best days in TGC2. All shots are one direction to the same side of 0. The deviation factor seems kind of wide. No stray shots more than 60% off center (with relation to the .035 edge) means there could be some kind of axis restricting, but I also think this can be done by a player who has always hit the ball pretty straight and concentrated on that. I would allow this, however I think if the device were known, I would think it should be compared to that kind of specific device of other players if that data is known.
F = This player seems to have a comfortable 'sweet spot' with deviations. Four deadlines/centerline bother me. This one I think is allowed, but it makes me dirty to say that if that makes sense.
G = Too many deadline/centerline shots (9/30). Little deviation. Not allowed.
H = Almost seems like this player is throwing in the out of cone shot of purpose, but I don't know how all inputs nehave. Too many deadlines (7/29). Also too many shots clustered shots near zero. The deadlines tip it to no for me, I have a hard time finding that this result could come from a controller that would normally be one that is bundled with when you buy a console.
I = Obviously the number of deadlines/centerlines here are too many/too high of a % (If the range of .01 is considered 2/7 or just under 30% of the way to an out of cone shot, then a centerline/deadline shot in the middle is 100 times .0001 vs .01 as close is the numbers are linear. That means this player has 10/31 shots that are 1/300th of the way to the edge of the cone).
J = Tougher call on this one. No deadlines/centerlines. But so many near it. That makes this one quite suspect. The fact that theier 'natural' shot is left of center would explin the 4 single shots further out to the left. I have the hardest time with this one because while I am suspicious, I also think for the outset some erring on the side of caution should be taken. I say in, but follow this player in the future for sure when possible. Could be that this player can hit the ball pretty straight, but those outliers are shots from the rough/sand where it is much tougher to be within the cone. I am not sure how that affects the numerical values we see here.
In conclusion I have to add some overall thoughts. In 10 different player examples, that is 180 holes of golf, there were a total of 2 shots outside the cone. Two. Now, there are obviously players who are better at hitting the ball straight in TGC2 than me. I understand this. But most of these examples are roughly 30 full shots per round give or take. I would love to hit 298 out of 300 of my full shots within the cone! If there was a distinction made that these full shots were all tee shots or from the fairway, then I missed it and my next point in invalid. But are not shots from the bunker/rough going to be much tougher? I am lucky to hit 1/2 of my FULL rough/sand shots within the cone and yet 2 out of 300 shots for 10 different players? Hmmm. In the above examples I find E the hardest to figure out how to judge. The rest give me suspicion to wildly different degrees. To me I think a % of deadlines (.0001 or less) coupled with the immediate singular range to the immediate left or right of that range needs to be a maximum % of shots for a round or tournaments. Maybe even X number of shots deadlined in four rounds maximum or even better a higher number of shots allowed per event that are within one range left or right of center PLUS the centerlin/deadline shots allowed per event.
I would stress to others to looks at Doyleys' example and note the abscence of shots in the center ranges. They are within two devations of range off center including the deadline/centerline shot. Then look at the examples. They are all suspect to some degree to me. C and D are a bit of different animals to me. Then E is the most confusing for me. After that, the number of deadline/centerline shots are a no-no IMO. J is so concentrated near the centerline shot that I am hesitant to allow these results. Like I mentioned, I think the four outliers are rough/sand shots.
Disclaimer: Very rambling-on kind of typing done as I looked at the examples and typed out my thoughts in real time as I looked them. So I apologize for the poor punctuation and the run-on sentences, grammar, spelling, etc. issues.
Additional thoughts (Edited): I have no idea what is normally in place for checking API data after tournaments close and I don't want to be told. But at the very least I hope the winner, a random player finishing top 10, and a third player finishing 11th or worse are chosen for API looksies for tournaments. I have no idea the feasibility of this and the time involved vs the availability of staff. Maybe it is too much to ask. Maybe it isn't. Maybe a bit more can be looked at per tournament.
Note: I would think that requests sent via email about a certain player would at least be in the running to be looked at when time is available.
I don't envy the work involved in all of this. But I am glad it is being shown that effort will be made because this issue can really split us as we have obviously seen this past month.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griz891 on Jul 25, 2017 0:13:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Airik3333 on Jul 25, 2017 0:18:01 GMT -5
Doyley is a damn good player... If you consider his shot charts versus the rest of these.. I would question the following players..
A-B-C-D-G-I-
I would keep a eye on F-H-J and I would be curious about what device they use..
E is a strange one for me.. I could see where he is just a really good player.. Hard to say on that one..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 0:25:14 GMT -5
Guys...let's stay on topic. We don't need to discuss penalties in this thread. We don't need to branch into why people might cheat, etc. This isn't about any of that. What we want to determine is whether the community wants us to just filter our obvious cheaters or do we also want to filter out players with an input device advantage? That's really what this exercise is about. 95% of all players are on the same playing field. But then there are the outliers I've posted in the first thread. Some of these are cheaters but many are not. Many are just players that appear to have an input device advantage. Question is...what does the community want? And where do we draw the lines? Apologies - I took your question around wether these rounds should be included or not as a request for what the outcome in total should be. Therefore no the rounds of evident cheating should not be counted straight up. |
|
|
|
Post by feng187 on Jul 25, 2017 0:34:36 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this SmilingGoats guys hopefully you's can find a way to catch anyone cheating as there seems to be a lot of question marks over it with the new game. A couple of quick questions though, I may have missed this already being answered and sorry if I did but here goes. - Does this API data include putting also or to put it better could the putting skew the results as I find when putting I get a near dead straight line most of the time but nothing near on any other shot so it's obviously less punishing.
- Does the API have the ability to return what kind of input device was used as in was it a stock controller or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doyley on Jul 25, 2017 0:45:34 GMT -5
Just quickly before I go to bed - keep in mind these sets of charts are just your input device results.
If you are on the tee/ flat fairway then they generally end up the same after those lies are factored in.
The catch is when you are in rough or bunker with a red slope. The guys that can hit a 0.005 in those situations are going to stay in the cone and hit much better recovery shot than someone hitting a 0.025 which would result in a shank. A 0.025 from the tee is a decent tee shot with a slight pull/push to it.
This one area where controllers and mice with larger dead zones gain a big advantage and why these conversations need to be had.
|
|
|
|
Post by smurfblade88 on Jul 25, 2017 0:45:38 GMT -5
As a non of tech guy I don't understand the graphs that well.
What I would say though is this.
Given that we cant tell if someone is using an augmented device or not this would be my position.
In order to weed out the obvious cheaters and not alienate the few players that are very good hitting straight shots legitimately I would suggest this:
Rounds that should be DQ'd shud be:
-Anyone who hits all perfect 0 deviation shots
-Anyone who has all their shots at 0 deviation or extremely close to it.
-anyone who hits a run of consecutive dead straight shots.
Now the people that can hit more straight shots than others but that have plenty of variance overall a dialogue should be opened privately with them and they should show admin their controllers and try provide evidence of how they swing with their contoller just so admin can it is legit.
We need to be careful here as there is obvioisly many different levels of skill and just because it may seem unreaslitic to some that a player could legitimitly have a really good average swing doesnt mean its not possible to do which is why i suggest that proof of devices and of swings should be provided in these cases.
Now in general for me if someone hits a couple of dead straight shots a round but their worst shots are nowhere near straight that should fall under the title of can u confirm ur device and swing technique please....and once confirmed that should be fine.
Just because the average swing is a certain number it doesnt mean anything better than that is cheating or getting an unfair advantage because there will be varying levels of skill.
So to sum up id say
-DQ rounds of obvious cheaters
-If someone has an overall very good swing with little devation either check them out and get them to verify their device and swing technique or dq in the case of consecutive dead straight shots.
-If someone hits a few straight lines a round but has a good variance between best and worst shot id either let that pass or have it checked out casue it may be borderline. In borderline cases id probably let it pass as its gonna be hard to prove anything untoward.
Not an easy decision but a fair one IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Elk22 on Jul 25, 2017 1:13:38 GMT -5
Catch them red tee using, cheating punks, lol. Get em!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by frank70 on Jul 25, 2017 1:45:15 GMT -5
Doyleys graph should be more or less the norm. Every graph that shows 6,7 or 8 shots with the exactly same deviation is fishy to me - because the API is very fine granular. How can a human be so precise? I don't believe it. It isn't about straight lines only for me. 6 shots with the exact number away from the middle are equally fishy than 6 absolutely straight lines.
If a lot of the data points to the use of a 3rd party straight hitting controller (advantage) i would like to see this player using another device. Any advantage a device brings shouldn't be tolerated. I mean, the whole field would have a disadvantage. Protecting the field is a golf rule - should hold true for TGCTours as well
|
|
|
|
Post by gavlaar124 on Jul 25, 2017 2:21:31 GMT -5
Can't we just specify that stock controllers must be used at all times? Don't know what can be done about mice on the pc though. I have no clue as to what the graphs are showing as it's far too early in the morning for my brain to work it out 😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 2:32:46 GMT -5
Doyleys graph should be more or less the norm. Every graph that shows 6,7 or 8 shots with the exactly same deviation is fishy to me - because the API is very fine granular. How can a human be so precise? I don't believe it. It isn't about straight lines only for me. 6 shots with the exact number away from the middle are equally fishy than 6 absolutely straight lines. If a lot of the data points to the use of a 3rd party straight hitting controller (advantage) i would like to see this player using another device. Any advantage a device brings shouldn't be tolerated. I mean, the whole field would have a disadvantage. Protecting the field is a golf rule - should hold true for TGCTours as well For me the data on the dead straight shots are much more telling. Look at ALL the ranges not at the middle. They have a range of .0025 (i.e. .0.0025 to .0050). Now look at the range of the deadline/centerline shot. It is -0.0001 to 0.0001. This means that a range of the centerline shot is .0002. The other ranges is .0025. This means that a deadline/centerline shot has a range that is 12 and a half times narrower than ALL the other ranges. If these graphs were proper, they should have the first range to the immediate left and right of the center range 12 and a half times further to the right and left assuming that the difference is linear and not logarithmic, which I do not know. But anything with the dead straight -.0001 to .0001 more than once in one round is suspicious and a heap of deviance just one range outside of this is quite suspect. To the bolded point above. I am less apt to be suspicious of those not single pixeled dead straight as their range is so much more than the "white striped" shots. |
|
