|
|
Post by InsanericK on Nov 18, 2022 15:34:56 GMT -5
One thing nobody seems to account for in discussing the balls' numbers is that (if properly modeled) really long putts have a 'skid' portion at impact before they start 'rolling' end over end (watch a few youtube vids). My guess is that a lower roll number ACCENTUATES that effect on longest putts, thus dropping 168 to 147. But on short putts, the skid is much less pronounced, so a lower roll number makes less difference, so they don't really feel different with 'magic' balls.
I'm a bowler, so I know a little something about how cover & core composition might affect friction during that phase of a rolling ball.
At least I finally earned another sleeve of the consumables to test.
I don't mind following the rules, but I DO like to know whether the rulemakers actually understand what they're banning. It's become problematic in all other areas of life these days, why not here ?
Not all heros wears cap!! But leave your hope here, no matter what you gonna say, they are stucked on the first degree like a broken record. And all this dosent take in account that the difference of green speed will aslo come with different in spin, distance and bounce, wich balance everything in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Nov 18, 2022 15:38:22 GMT -5
One thing nobody seems to account for in discussing the balls' numbers is that (if properly modeled) really long putts have a 'skid' portion at impact before they start 'rolling' end over end (watch a few youtube vids). My guess is that a lower roll number ACCENTUATES that effect on longest putts, thus dropping 168 to 147. But on short putts, the skid is much less pronounced, so a lower roll number makes less difference, so they don't really feel different with 'magic' balls.
I'm a bowler, so I know a little something about how cover & core composition might affect friction during that phase of a rolling ball.
At least I finally earned another sleeve of the consumables to test.
I don't mind following the rules, but I DO like to know whether the rulemakers actually understand what they're banning. It's become problematic in all other areas of life these days, why not here ?
The animation in game overplays the skid. If you watch a super slow motion video of this IRL, it skids for about an inch regardless of ball covers / compression |
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Nov 18, 2022 15:46:19 GMT -5
One thing nobody seems to account for in discussing the balls' numbers is that (if properly modeled) really long putts have a 'skid' portion at impact before they start 'rolling' end over end (watch a few youtube vids). My guess is that a lower roll number ACCENTUATES that effect on longest putts, thus dropping 168 to 147. But on short putts, the skid is much less pronounced, so a lower roll number makes less difference, so they don't really feel different with 'magic' balls.
I'm a bowler, so I know a little something about how cover & core composition might affect friction during that phase of a rolling ball.
At least I finally earned another sleeve of the consumables to test.
I don't mind following the rules, but I DO like to know whether the rulemakers actually understand what they're banning. It's become problematic in all other areas of life these days, why not here ?
This video is a prime example of that, it’s clearly not a short putt looking at how fast the ball leaves the putter face |
|
|
|
Post by moneyman273 on Nov 18, 2022 15:57:36 GMT -5
I'm glad they removed the consumable balls so all the pay to win people on plat get dropped back down to CC where they belong! Another 'new' account. Yawn. |
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Nov 18, 2022 17:12:27 GMT -5
Different clips, different opinions ...
I'd say it's considerably more than 'an inch' before the forward roll kicks in in this one.
Up until the 0:12 second mark, it's sliding, and the friction (or low roll stat) is controlling things.
Now, I'm not saying it's modeled perfectly, I'm just saying that there are things besides the 'absolute' green speed that affect the 'maximum distance' number on any putt.
Is it 'right' that a ball with a longer slide at the start ends up 30 feet shorter on a 60-yard putt ? I dunno.
Look at how many players seem to have misunderstood the 'lie-range' number, and what reducing it in the HUD means, so why not the ball dynamics ?
For all of this (which I find interesting to research, if you didn't notice), if they'd fix the effin' drop rules, I'd shave 3 strokes a round off my score most days, no matter what orb I whack !!
|
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Nov 18, 2022 18:09:31 GMT -5
Different clips, different opinions ... I'd say it's considerably more than 'an inch' before the forward roll kicks in in this one. Up until the 0:12 second mark, it's sliding, and the friction (or low roll stat) is controlling things. Now, I'm not saying it's modeled perfectly, I'm just saying that there are things besides the 'absolute' green speed that affect the 'maximum distance' number on any putt. Is it 'right' that a ball with a longer slide at the start ends up 30 feet shorter on a 60-yard putt ? I dunno. Look at how many players seem to have misunderstood the 'lie-range' number, and what reducing it in the HUD means, so why not the ball dynamics ? For all of this (which I find interesting to research, if you didn't notice), if they'd fix the effin' drop rules, I'd shave 3 strokes a round off my score most days, no matter what orb I whack !! It all depends on dynamic loft (loft at impact), if there’s around 4 degrees it will skid slightly then roll. If the dynamic loft is low < 2 degrees, the ball will skid for longer. Most putters have around 4 degrees of loft as standard and will create less skid and promote earlier roll if that loft is presented correctly. The thing is everyone is unique and may have a strong forward press or a less shallow AoA. For example, Bryson has around 8–10 degrees of loft because his arm lock style means the loft is reduced significantly so he needs that added loft to produce the correct impact factors. The video you have posted shows someone using an ill-fitted putter, his impact is forcing the ball into the turf causing excess skidding. Spieth on the other hand is producing optimal impact conditions, something grafted by spending time on a SAM putting lab paired with an elite putting action. |
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Nov 18, 2022 18:12:21 GMT -5
Different clips, different opinions ... I'd say it's considerably more than 'an inch' before the forward roll kicks in in this one. Up until the 0:12 second mark, it's sliding, and the friction (or low roll stat) is controlling things. Now, I'm not saying it's modeled perfectly, I'm just saying that there are things besides the 'absolute' green speed that affect the 'maximum distance' number on any putt. Is it 'right' that a ball with a longer slide at the start ends up 30 feet shorter on a 60-yard putt ? I dunno. Look at how many players seem to have misunderstood the 'lie-range' number, and what reducing it in the HUD means, so why not the ball dynamics ? For all of this (which I find interesting to research, if you didn't notice), if they'd fix the effin' drop rules, I'd shave 3 strokes a round off my score most days, no matter what orb I whack !! Pause your video at impact and you’ll see his excessive forward shaft lean. Even though it’s an off-settled putter head, there is not enough dynamic loft on the putter at impact |
|
|
|
Post by Cecil Harvey on Nov 18, 2022 18:41:23 GMT -5
One thing nobody seems to account for in discussing the balls' numbers is that (if properly modeled) really long putts have a 'skid' portion at impact before they start 'rolling' end over end (watch a few youtube vids). My guess is that a lower roll number ACCENTUATES that effect on longest putts, thus dropping 168 to 147. But on short putts, the skid is much less pronounced, so a lower roll number makes less difference, so they don't really feel different with 'magic' balls.
I'm a bowler, so I know a little something about how cover & core composition might affect friction during that phase of a rolling ball.
At least I finally earned another sleeve of the consumables to test.
I don't mind following the rules, but I DO like to know whether the rulemakers actually understand what they're banning. It's become problematic in all other areas of life these days, why not here ?
Not all heros wears cap!! But leave your hope here, no matter what you gonna say, they are stucked on the first degree like a broken record. And all this dosent take in account that the difference of green speed will aslo come with different in spin, distance and bounce, wich balance everything in the end. Or... just hear me out here. I know this is nuts. But I'm just riffing here. We all use the same golf ball and we all have the same settings across the board as others on our tours in terms of how the ball reacts on each tour like we've had since TGC1.
I know it's crazy and radical, but it just might work. 8 seasons of data may be lacking, but it could just be enough (barely).
|
|
|
|
Post by InsanericK on Nov 18, 2022 19:03:59 GMT -5
Not all heros wears cap!! But leave your hope here, no matter what you gonna say, they are stucked on the first degree like a broken record. And all this dosent take in account that the difference of green speed will aslo come with different in spin, distance and bounce, wich balance everything in the end. Or... just hear me out here. I know this is nuts. But I'm just riffing here. We all use the same golf ball and we all have the same settings across the board as others on our tours in terms of how the ball reacts on each tour like we've had since TGC1.
I know it's crazy and radical, but it just might work. 8 seasons of data may be lacking, but it could just be enough (barely).
It's alright to not understand the game you're playing and you're free to tone down the rules to make 2K23 into a similar version of 2K21 or TGC17 if you want. I am confident 2K will bring a change somewhere in the near future so we can get out of having the choice between the stock version of the game or leveling down to the point designers have to retool very playable course. This should be the warning sign that until further change, the stock version is a better option, but I guess not. Alright, let's continue that on monday night. It's not a waste of time talking about this when I'm paid at work, but at home it feels so |
|
|
|
Post by Cecil Harvey on Nov 18, 2022 19:31:01 GMT -5
Or... just hear me out here. I know this is nuts. But I'm just riffing here. We all use the same golf ball and we all have the same settings across the board as others on our tours in terms of how the ball reacts on each tour like we've had since TGC1.
I know it's crazy and radical, but it just might work. 8 seasons of data may be lacking, but it could just be enough (barely).
I am confident 2K will bring a change somewhere in the near future so we can get out of having the choice between the stock version of the game or leveling down to the point designers have to retool very playable course. This should be the warning sign that until further change, the stock version is a better option, but I guess not. Alright, let's continue that on monday night. It's not a waste of time talking about this when I'm paid at work, but at home it feels so If you think people are idiots and those players don't understand what the consumable balls do and their effects in being able to break how the weekly events were wanted to be setup like and played at, then you are not even trying to hear both sides on this debate, but keep looking down on people if it helps you feel better. The high end consumable balls are absurdly OP.
Designers and schedulers here do a remarkable job, and you are seriously underestimating them. If anything, they are handicapped trying to setup courses for infinite setups that could happen. Let designers setup their courses with the default ball to play as they want the course to play, then let the Rangers test them under the same ball, then let the Schedulers setup the courses for events under that same ball across the board. These consumable balls are just absurd course breaking with all 4 stats being positive additions on the highest level, and there is no way that we will all play under the same conditions that designers, Rangers test at, and Schedulers setup for weekly events unless you lock them down to one and only one option for every single player.
You didn't go back far enough. I remember goofy very firm, very fast setups in TGC1 where you could land 30-40 yards short of the pin/green, and then still see it roll like on ice and go off of the back of the green. I remember when we didn't have Universal winds. People would literally wind wait until it was low. Getting those Universal winds made the game play the same for everyone across all platforms. Admin asked us to test it as each new game came out. They have been remarkably consistent in wanting the game to play the same across the board as best they can control in each new version. This rule change is keeping with that tradition.
If you want us to have the option to use consumable balls that, at the top end, help all 4 stats with these supposed "negative effects" that are claimed, then that is a remarkably weak argument to stand on. A good motto is KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Making the game play as close to the same as possible across the board has worked for many years. It is literally (very much IMO here) how Admin wants it to play with what control they have over the game settings. The consumable balls are extremely OP and way too arcade, and you are being dishonest to yourself if you think otherwise that they are even somewhat balanced at the high end options.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeseterr on Nov 19, 2022 0:22:21 GMT -5
It's alright to not understand the game you're playing and you're free to tone down the rules to make 2K23 into a similar version of 2K21 or TGC17 if you want. I am confident 2K will bring a change somewhere in the near future so we can get out of having the choice between the stock version of the game or leveling down to the point designers have to retool very playable course. This should be the warning sign that until further change, the stock version is a better option, but I guess not. Alright, let's continue that on monday night. It's not a waste of time talking about this when I'm paid at work, but at home it feels so If you think people are idiots and those players don't understand what the consumable balls do and their effects in being able to break how the weekly events were wanted to be setup like and played at, then you are not even trying to hear both sides on this debate, but keep looking down on people if it helps you feel better. The high end consumable balls are absurdly OP.
Designers and schedulers here do a remarkable job, and you are seriously underestimating them. If anything, they are handicapped trying to setup courses for infinite setups that could happen. Let designers setup their courses with the default ball to play as they want the course to play, then let the Rangers test them under the same ball, then let the Schedulers setup the courses for events under that same ball across the board. These consumable balls are just absurd course breaking with all 4 stats being positive additions on the highest level, and there is no way that we will all play under the same conditions that designers, Rangers test at, and Schedulers setup for weekly events unless you lock them down to one and only one option for every single player.
You didn't go back far enough. I remember goofy very firm, very fast setups in TGC1 where you could land 30-40 yards short of the pin/green, and then still see it roll like on ice and go off of the back of the green. I remember when we didn't have Universal winds. People would literally wind wait until it was low. Getting those Universal winds made the game play the same for everyone across all platforms. Admin asked us to test it as each new game came out. They have been remarkably consistent in wanting the game to play the same across the board as best they can control in each new version. This rule change is keeping with that tradition.
If you want us to have the option to use consumable balls that, at the top end, help all 4 stats with these supposed "negative effects" that are claimed, then that is a remarkably weak argument to stand on. A good motto is KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Making the game play as close to the same as possible across the board has worked for many years. It is literally (very much IMO here) how Admin wants it to play with what control they have over the game settings. The consumable balls are extremely OP and way too arcade, and you are being dishonest to yourself if you think otherwise that they are even somewhat balanced at the high end options.
Amen. Please admin close this thread. Let’s play 👍🏻 |
|
|
|
Post by stephen1970 on Nov 19, 2022 2:19:34 GMT -5
A bit confused so hope someone can help..i have my putter fittings at 91 putt path and 90 putt weight…if i reduce my putt WEIGHT down to say 70 will my putt go slower as theres less weight or am i getting it mixed up and the higher the weight the slower it goes???
|
|
|
|
Post by fransslabak on Nov 19, 2022 3:08:29 GMT -5
A bit confused so hope someone can help..i have my putter fittings at 91 putt path and 90 putt weight…if i reduce my putt WEIGHT down to say 70 will my putt go slower as theres less weight or am i getting it mixed up and the higher the weight the slower it goes??? No, higher weight stats just mean it is somewhat easier to hit the right weight. It does not make the ball faster. Weight stats have no impact on how fast or slow the ball will go - your swing determines that. The stats only have a (relatively small) impact on how easy it will be to hit the right speed. |
|
|
|
Post by zooby97 on Nov 19, 2022 4:42:30 GMT -5
The only way you can have a level playing field in the tours is to have everybody on the tours with the same archetype and fittings. But you cannot take that away or you just might as well scrap the game and start all over. Tweaking is all that we can do now.
|
|
|
|
Post by SloanerTW on Nov 19, 2022 5:47:12 GMT -5
The only way you can have a level playing field in the tours is to have everybody on the tours with the same archetype and fittings. But you cannot take that away or you just might as well scrap the game and start all over. Tweaking is all that we can do now. Dont forget putting it on beginner difficulty with all pro vision on |
|
