|
|
Post by GW_Hope on Dec 14, 2022 12:19:11 GMT -5
I'm more in line with Ben. IMO, too many stupid pins exist because designers' egos get crushed when good players have a good day on their course. I've had my fill of pins on 1 yd-square crowns, or a yard from a red slope off the green. If your pins made real-world sense before, they probably will now. If you designed to keep even well-played scores down, there could be some issues. For me, a couple of squares of green around a pin seems true to my real-world golf experience, so I'm usually not overly cruel in placing them. I guess it's unfortunate that placement is an inexact science, yet putting is a science of line & bead counting to a lot of players. How about this as a potential equalizer ... give societies an option to set a shot timer. AT least make them do their math quickly, like real golfers.LOL. Shot timer or fading grid lines |
|
|
|
Post by bubbadave on Dec 14, 2022 13:00:35 GMT -5
I guess it's unfortunate that placement is an inexact science, yet putting is a science of line & bead counting to a lot of players. How about this as a potential equalizer ... give societies an option to set a shot timer. AT least make them do their math quickly, like real golfers.LOL. I didn't realize there were so many online Berhard Langers. |
|
|
|
Post by axelvonfersen on Dec 14, 2022 13:00:41 GMT -5
Leading score through R2 on CC-L is -16.
Leading score through R2 on CC-H is -26.
Leading score through R2 on CC-D is -28.
Leading score through R2 on CC-A is -34.
Leading score through R2 on Kinetic is -25.
Leading score through R2 on Elite is -24.
Leading score through R2 on Plat is -25.
The game isn't too hard. The greens aren't unreasonable. I'd have patience until bespoke courses for 2k23 starts to drop.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Dec 14, 2022 17:35:11 GMT -5
If you don’t playtest greens rigorously on ports from 2K21, they will simply play badly. I wish all designers heeded this advice before publishing their ported courses. See: Necedah Pines pin 1 hole 12 on Plat this week (sorry Mayday). |
|
|
|
Post by mctrees02 on Dec 14, 2022 18:24:45 GMT -5
I'm probably gonna be a bit unpopular for saying this, but I will anyway. I think every green so far has been playable. Plan the miss to be one side of the green or the other, don't make it too long, too short, or short sight yourself with a downhill chip from the rough. With enough thought you can almost always avoid the scenario where you are left with impossible situations. Some downhill putts you can be ever so delicate with and you may get them to stop.. others? You just should never be there to begin with. Its difficult though, course management this year is 100% way more in play with how hard things are on the greens. Again like always I see other sides to this, but I do enjoy the strat side personally. Lindsay. I would enjoy strategy if that’s what I could use. It’s quite different though for those of us who do not know whether they’ll have decent tempo or not. Playing for a specific mis becomes rather difficult if you have no idea whether you’re gonna miss it long, short, left or right. Then strategy is not what’s gonna help you… For me personally, currently, the game’s a lottery. Perfect stretches and then multiple holes with stutters, swing skipping parts, etc… And then perfect again for half or three quarters of a round. Really frustrating. For you...I would suggest turning the green grids back on  |
|
|
|
Post by mctrees02 on Dec 14, 2022 20:10:50 GMT -5
If you don’t playtest greens rigorously on ports from 2K21, they will simply play badly. I wish all designers heeded this advice before publishing their ported courses. See: Necedah Pines pin 1 hole 12 on Plat this week (sorry Mayday). Don't pump a driver into the left greenside bunker on a 300y hole and you won't have a problem. We still have 2 eagles and 22 birdies against 9 bogeys and 7 double bogeys in Round 1 so I dont think the designer or scheduler caused a problem here.   |
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Dec 14, 2022 21:14:35 GMT -5
I wish all designers heeded this advice before publishing their ported courses. See: Necedah Pines pin 1 hole 12 on Plat this week (sorry Mayday). Don't pump a driver into the left greenside bunker on a 300y hole and you won't have a problem. We still have 2 eagles and 22 birdies against 9 bogeys and 7 double bogeys in Round 1 so I dont think the designer or scheduler caused a problem here. Yes I will agree that I deserved 5 maybe 6 of those 7 shots. Hell I even rangered this pin on default speed but when I did I layed up and stuck it tight for bird. I'm just using this as an example of pins that might need a little love before publishing. |
|
|
|
Post by Cecil Harvey on Dec 14, 2022 21:53:05 GMT -5
Leading score through R2 on CC-L is -16. Leading score through R2 on CC-H is -26. Leading score through R2 on CC-D is -28. Leading score through R2 on CC-A is -34. Leading score through R2 on Kinetic is -25. Leading score through R2 on Elite is -24. Leading score through R2 on Plat is -25. The game isn't too hard. The greens aren't unreasonable. I'd have patience until bespoke courses for 2k23 starts to drop. While I appreciate the overall message here, the average player on each tour is much more representative than the leader (which shows the short term top end talent on that tour who are very likely to move up and promote). The cutline as a measure of the "average" player on a tour is a better look, IMO as it is more of a middle of the tour take.
In the end it still will show that for most of the tours are still fine, and only at the bottom end of the CC ladder is where they might be outclassed. I am following data of the tour scoring, and I feel there might be an argument to be made that the CC tours be split again as the bottom end tours may be lagging on a bell-end curve where you take in the average player and slightly below to the first Demo marks on those tours.
Edit: I 100% agree about patience as we are still filtering through courses and/or setups that may have been approved before TGCT had the ability to lock to default ball only.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamwes626 on Dec 14, 2022 22:10:46 GMT -5
Leading score through R2 on CC-L is -16. Leading score through R2 on CC-H is -26. Leading score through R2 on CC-D is -28. Leading score through R2 on CC-A is -34. Leading score through R2 on Kinetic is -25. Leading score through R2 on Elite is -24. Leading score through R2 on Plat is -25. The game isn't too hard. The greens aren't unreasonable. I'd have patience until bespoke courses for 2k23 starts to drop. While I appreciate the overall message here, the average player on each tour is much more representative than the leader (which shows the short term top end talent on that tour who are very likely to move up and promote). The cutline as a measure of the "average" player on a tour is a better look, IMO as it is more of a middle of the tour take.
In the end it still will show that for most of the tours are still fine, and only at the bottom end of the CC ladder is where they might be outclassed. I am following data of the tour scoring, and I feel there might be an argument to be made that the CC tours be split again as the bottom end tours may be lagging on a bell-end curve where you take in the average player and slightly below to the first Demo marks on those tours.
Edit: I 100% agree about patience as we are still filtering through courses and/or setups that may have been approved before TGCT had the ability to lock to default ball only.
I think Axel is right - I'll give another stat - I said this in another thread but - the #1 Promo event after the qualifier - 1025 players and only 52 players over par. That's about 95% under par - it proves that the schedulers have enough control over conditions despite the default ball and it proves that many players are good enough to compete. We just started the season - golfers in real life deal with changes too and they have enough motivation to find a way to be better. |
|
|
|
Post by Cecil Harvey on Dec 14, 2022 22:35:07 GMT -5
While I appreciate the overall message here, the average player on each tour is much more representative than the leader (which shows the short term top end talent on that tour who are very likely to move up and promote). The cutline as a measure of the "average" player on a tour is a better look, IMO as it is more of a middle of the tour take.
In the end it still will show that for most of the tours are still fine, and only at the bottom end of the CC ladder is where they might be outclassed. I am following data of the tour scoring, and I feel there might be an argument to be made that the CC tours be split again as the bottom end tours may be lagging on a bell-end curve where you take in the average player and slightly below to the first Demo marks on those tours.
Edit: I 100% agree about patience as we are still filtering through courses and/or setups that may have been approved before TGCT had the ability to lock to default ball only.
I think Axel is right - I'll give another stat - I said this in another thread but - the #1 Promo event after the qualifier - 1025 players and only 52 players over par. That's about 95% under par - it proves that the schedulers have enough control over conditions despite the default ball and it proves that many players are good enough to compete. We just started the season - golfers in real life deal with changes too and they have enough motivation to find a way to be better. Even par is an arbitrary scoring point, though, and for most of the tours par is not a scoring point one should use to accurately use to gauge who are competitive or not. The Pro tours will always have scores making the cut under par unless you give them truly ridiculous conditions, which shouldn't be allowed here, IMO, then being under par and being competitive are not compatible at all on these top 3 tours. I would extend this to the top end CC tours as well. This gets into my crux where I think the top end talent on the CC tours and the bottom end of CC are so far removed from each other where I think they may benefit from having separate courses each week.
The tours where being around even par is actually competitive is on the lowest 2-3 tours, which is why I think they may benefit the most from having their own courses and setups.
Edit: Over the years, even par has not been a concentration point of TGCT. Having competitive tours are more important, and for good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamwes626 on Dec 14, 2022 22:41:11 GMT -5
I think Axel is right - I'll give another stat - I said this in another thread but - the #1 Promo event after the qualifier - 1025 players and only 52 players over par. That's about 95% under par - it proves that the schedulers have enough control over conditions despite the default ball and it proves that many players are good enough to compete. We just started the season - golfers in real life deal with changes too and they have enough motivation to find a way to be better. Even par is an arbitrary scoring point, though, and for most of the tours par is not a scoring point one should use to accurately use to gauge who are competitive or not. The Pro tours will always have scores making the cut under par unless you give them truly ridiculous conditions, which shouldn't be allowed here, IMO, then being under par and being competitive are not compatible at all on these top 3 tours. I would extend this to the top end CC tours as well. This gets into my crux where I think the top end talent on the CC tours and the bottom end of CC are so far removed from each other where I think they may benefit from having separate courses each week.
The tours where being around even par is actually competitive is on the lowest 2-3 tours, which is why I think they may benefit the most from having their own tour.
Edit: Over the years, even par has not been a concentration point of TGCT. Having competitive tours are more important, and for good reason.
95% under par usually means the median score and/or average score will be really good. In this case the median score was -23. If we take that number, the average round for the middle of the pack was a 66. Yes I know it was only one tourney but it was a very large sample of evidence. These stats indicate we are good enough to deal with the ball we have. Oh and yes you're right about the discrepency. The scores were excellent from many players but the range of scores was like -64 to +34 - that's a good point. |
|
|
|
Post by Cecil Harvey on Dec 14, 2022 22:48:51 GMT -5
Even par is an arbitrary scoring point, though, and for most of the tours par is not a scoring point one should use to accurately use to gauge who are competitive or not. The Pro tours will always have scores making the cut under par unless you give them truly ridiculous conditions, which shouldn't be allowed here, IMO, then being under par and being competitive are not compatible at all on these top 3 tours. I would extend this to the top end CC tours as well. This gets into my crux where I think the top end talent on the CC tours and the bottom end of CC are so far removed from each other where I think they may benefit from having separate courses each week.
The tours where being around even par is actually competitive is on the lowest 2-3 tours, which is why I think they may benefit the most from having their own tour.
Edit: Over the years, even par has not been a concentration point of TGCT. Having competitive tours are more important, and for good reason.
95% under par usually means the median score and/or average score will be really good. In this case the median score was -23. If we take that number, the average round for the middle of the pack was a 66. This is a comparison of non-Platinum players as a whole who are good enough to hold a tour card. I am pointing out each tours' median among all 15 tours. We are not comparing the same thing. The higher tours skew this average in a Promotion event, not to mention the pertinent fact that I have no idea of the difficulty of this course as I did not play it. It could have been considered easy or not.
Again, you are using round averages and not considering that for most of our tours each individual tour has its own competitiveness within itself regardless of scoring, and the tightest tours are in the higher to middle end CC tours. This is what TGCT should want. As many competitive tours as possible while trying to minimize the amount of less competitive tours, which will always exist at the furthest end of the bell curve. Platinum being reduced to a small amount tried to address the top end issue on this.
Once again, I am pointing out that it is possible (but we need more data over time) that the bottom end CC tours may benefit from having a separate tour from the higher end CC tours.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamwes626 on Dec 14, 2022 23:20:08 GMT -5
95% under par usually means the median score and/or average score will be really good. In this case the median score was -23. If we take that number, the average round for the middle of the pack was a 66. This is a comparison of non-Platinum players as a whole who are good enough to hold a tour card. I am pointing out each tours' median among all 15 tours. We are not comparing the same thing. The higher tours skew this average in a Promotion event, not to mention the pertinent fact that I have no idea of the difficulty of this course as I did not play it. It could have been considered easy or not.
Again, you are using round averages and not considering that for most of our tours each individual tour has its own competitiveness within itself regardless of scoring, and the tightest tours are in the higher to middle end CC tours. This is what TGCT should want. As many competitive tours as possible while trying to minimize the amount of less competitive tours, which will always exist at the furthest end of the bell curve. Platinum being reduced to a small amount tried to address the top end issue on this.
Once again, I am pointing out that it is possible (but we need more data over time) that the bottom end CC tours may benefit from having a separate tour from the higher end CC tours.
I was agreeing with Axel that as a community, we're playing fine in relation to par- I don't think TGC needs to change anything - this is the thread topic. You're adding on the competitive element that - I agree the disparity seems large, but we need to give players more time to gather the fittings or get used the game or whatever - it's too early to make a major rule change and it's too late to change up the divisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Cecil Harvey on Dec 14, 2022 23:24:04 GMT -5
This is a comparison of non-Platinum players as a whole who are good enough to hold a tour card. I am pointing out each tours' median among all 15 tours. We are not comparing the same thing. The higher tours skew this average in a Promotion event, not to mention the pertinent fact that I have no idea of the difficulty of this course as I did not play it. It could have been considered easy or not.
Again, you are using round averages and not considering that for most of our tours each individual tour has its own competitiveness within itself regardless of scoring, and the tightest tours are in the higher to middle end CC tours. This is what TGCT should want. As many competitive tours as possible while trying to minimize the amount of less competitive tours, which will always exist at the furthest end of the bell curve. Platinum being reduced to a small amount tried to address the top end issue on this.
Once again, I am pointing out that it is possible (but we need more data over time) that the bottom end CC tours may benefit from having a separate tour from the higher end CC tours.
I was agreeing with Axel that as a community, we're playing fine in relation to par- I don't think TGC needs to change anything - this is the thread topic. You're adding on the competitive element that - I agree the disparity seems large, but we need to give players more time to gather the fittings or get used the game or whatever - it's too early to make a major rule change and it's too late to change up the divisions. My take is a long term view for a hypothetical next season if the data supports it and we are fortunate enough to get another season (under the 2K23 banner). |
|
|
|
Post by zooby97 on Dec 14, 2022 23:45:39 GMT -5
Spoiler alert:wall of text ahead. Since the rangers are the ones that are doing the testing, and we’re mildly being called out here I guess I might as well respond. Obviously we’re working with a brand new game here that has made some tweaks and changes to what we’d been used to for the previous two years. That means we’re in the learning curve for all aspects of a new course being put on Tour. From rangers to schedulers to designers to the players themselves this adjustment will take a bit of time and will seem most jarring now when the two year established status quo of things has abruptly been changed. This will improve given time. Designers will start making courses more optimized for the way the new game plays. Players will learn the in’s and out’s of 2K23 and leave behind the stuff that no longer works the same from 2K21. HB will release updates that may or may not make the game better and may or may not start the learning curve all over again. From a ranger and scheduler standpoint we’ll learn what does and doesn’t play well across all the different levels of the Tour. As far as rangering goes, strictly from a green testing perspective I’ll go over the process. Back in TGC, TGC2, and TGC19 we used the 9 box rule as the barebones fundamental. The 9 box is the square of the green grid containing the hole and then the 8 squares that surround that one. The basic rule of thumb was that we wanted only green slope within that box. Some yellow along the edges of the box could be OK depending if we were looking at a platinum course versus a CC course or whatever. This was always an imperfect method because the slope colour could vary depending on where on the green you were, distance from the hole, etc. It’s impossible to test a green enough to account for more than a couple putt possibilities on any given hole. Aside from the inevitable couple of complaints each week from the sore loser that didn’t score as well as they thought they should have and wanted to blame everyone but themselves this system worked pretty well. 2K21 kind of changed the way the green grids worked and suddenly yellow and even orange slope wasn’t anywhere near as bad as it had been in the earlier games. We quickly realized that the 9 box was no longer as relevant as it used to be and it was no longer used while rangering. Instead we basically shifted to a straight up judgement call on the part of whatever ranger was playing the course. It’s normally fairly easy to tell the difference between a difficult or challenging green and an unfair one. The schedulers are also very good at knowing what kind of greens work or don’t work for their levels and some weeks they want to be more challenging than others. Even using this method of rangering which was far more open ended than previously I think it worked out well the overwhelming majority of the time. In 2K23 we’ve so far gone back to the 9 box system of rangering again but mixed with some judgement calls as well. Thus far the slope colour has seemed relevant again so we’ve erred on the side of caution to hopefully ease some of the transition period from old game to new. Will we continue this way as everyone adjusts? Maybe, maybe not. I assure you the schedulers pay attention to feedback that is received on the weekly threads to get an idea of what is or isn’t working. If you thinks the hole locations on any given course are “absurd” then speak up in that weekly thread. Just don’t be the person that didn’t play well that week and then whine because obviously it was the greens fault and not yours. If you can provide details or insight into what you didn’t like and possibly even include video or screenshots that is infinitely more helpful to everyone. Just telling the rangers and schedulers that you don’t like the job they’re doing without providing specific examples is basically useless and none of us are really going to care that much to make changes that will inevitably still be complained about with no explanation by a vocal minority. As far as adjusting the courses picked to account for things like tempo inconsistency or other game mechanic issues, sorry. I’m sure you know that isn’t something we can possibly account for and still use courses that are actually fun and/or challenging to play. In the end just be patient. If you thought things were mostly done well last season as far as greens and course selection went, I’m sure we’ll all get there again. You’ll get better at the game. Designers will get better at making courses suited for the game. Schedulers and rangers will get better at noticing all these things. Then we can start the whole process over again in a year or two when the next game comes out just like we did this time. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. The summary of a ranger’s role and evolution of the standards is certainly appreciated and walls of text are always welcome. Rangers are perpetually under appreciated in this league. The vast majority of messages directed your way are probably negative, and that’s unfair. When a fun/fair/enjoyable course and setup is selected, collectively we should be better in communicating that. I understood your response’s general theme as a call for patience on course selection and rangering. But I took the OP as less a disparagement of course selection and more a critique of course condition decisions and the prohibition of HB’s magic balls in light of 2K23’s new physics. He also made no mention of playing poorly. Certainly those factors are part of a ranger’s duties, and perhaps the OP could have provided some deeper context. But he’s not alone. Just yesterday, a very very well-known streamer and top “nextmaker” tweeted that anything above 155 “should be banned,” that fast greens are “unbearably bad” and that he was taking a hiatus from TGCTours. With this version’s increased rollout especially on the standard ball, I think it’s fair to keep the conversation alive. Defending your ranger staff and explaining the process helps to explain perspective, it just doesn’t help foster conversation when the message is to lay shame on the OP for perceived mild criticism. I’m a CC-E player. I play all of the Pro Tiers for practice. The 155’s are hard to putt on? Huh? For me the 155s are easier than 134-139. People are making too much of a big deal about the default balls. Why can’t people adjust? Why does it have to be perfect little greens to putt on? I like the challenge. You have to see what is behind the hole and maybe just go for par instead of trying to nail a harder birdie attempt with a downhill slope. And the scores are just as low as the old game on Pro settings throughout all of the tiers. The default balls have not slowed the scores down. Sure there are some tough courses but you have to adjust. |
|
