Forums

Help › Forums

Re: questions for tourney leaders, top players

Tue, Jun 26 2012 4:35 AM (36 replies)
  • genorb
    1,255 Posts
    Mon, Jun 25 2012 12:24 PM

    srellim234:

    genorb, the resigning in chess, for example, counts as a loss in tournament play.

    You are right but I was talking about withdrawing in general when I mentioned chess. For single play competition, withdrawing counts also as a loss. I mentioned a bit later in the post that, for unlimited tournament, withdrawing allow you to restart because that's the format.

    So in short, my position is that you cannot force someone to finish a round he started, withdrawing must be allowed.

    Regards

     

  • srellim234
    2,077 Posts
    Mon, Jun 25 2012 1:19 PM

    You're right, of course. Withdrawals must be allowed. But, chess in general is like a regular or practice round here. I'm referring to tournament play.

    I like the idea of being able to play in a tourney more than once, too, so I do oppose changing all tourneys to single play. In light of the scores in the 40s and tons of 50s in tournaments, though, should there be a limitation on how quickly one should be able to get back into regular tourneys? Or a limitation along the lines of only being able to play in a tourney a max of 3 times a day? Top players will still be the ones at the top but it might slow some of the "pretenders" to the thrones.

    Right now it's one extreme (single play) or the other (unlimited allowing one person to play hundreds of times in a day).  I'd like to something in between the two that would also allow WGT to get closer to the recently stated goal of reducing the rash of low scores.

    To keep those who wish to constantly stop and start, striving for the lowest WGT score possible, maybe one free unlimited tournament a month set up to encourage them to "go low".

  • genorb
    1,255 Posts
    Mon, Jun 25 2012 4:06 PM

    srellim234:

    I like the idea of being able to play in a tourney more than once, too, so I do oppose changing all tourneys to single play. In light of the scores in the 40s and tons of 50s in tournaments, though, should there be a limitation on how quickly one should be able to get back into regular tourneys? Or a limitation along the lines of only being able to play in a tourney a max of 3 times a day? Top players will still be the ones at the top but it might slow some of the "pretenders" to the thrones.

    For me at least it wouldn't change much. I don't restart much (I used to long ago but not now, too boring). For an unlimited tournament running over 1 month, I will play it (including restart) something like 5 to 15 times depending on what score I am posting compared to others and if I consider the tournament important or not (for one reason or another). For example I played the US open qualifier of this year 5 or 6 times (but finished it only once). I remember also that I have played certainly less than 15 times the qualifier at RSG last year (got a 58 on the first try and tried to get a 57 to be sure to be qualified). For a qualifier, once I know I am qualified, I generally stop to play it (or give it a couple of other tries if I believe I can do better).

    I really doubt that top players are playing that much unlimited tournaments. Perhaps if one of them really wants to win for some reason (but unlimited tournaments doesn't give much credits in general). I think believing that they play like 100 times the tourney is false in my opinion. At least I cannot imagine playing the same tourney 100 times...

    Regards

  • srellim234
    2,077 Posts
    Mon, Jun 25 2012 4:45 PM

    Which is fine. That's the cream of the crop rising to the top. I have no problem with the best players scoring whatever their score happens to be. My concern is about the quantity of those scores as opposed to the scores themselves. A lot of you deserve those scores based on your skill. If you look back at the first sub-50 round, though, it never would have happened if the player hadn't restarted a ton of times in one day. It's that factor that is allowing many more of the low 50s scores than there probably should be. Scores by players of a little less consistent skills than those of you on the top tier. They are achieving those scores using brute force, bludgeoning the game with a ton of starts. Which is perfectly ok for a video game but not for the realism of golf WGT states it wants to achieve.

    I'll never be one of the top players. But I personally would not care to see WGT tweak courses and clubs to make the game harder on an entire tier or the entire WGT community just for the purpose of raising scores. It's hard enough already. Like real courses are limited by real estate, this game becomes a lot more unrealistic and less fun if they have to start moving the tees back to another time zone and make the greens play like an ice hockey rink.

  • genorb
    1,255 Posts
    Tue, Jun 26 2012 2:59 AM

    srellim234:

    If you look back at the first sub-50 round, though, it never would have happened if the player hadn't restarted a ton of times in one day.

    Well we have too few data to draw definitive conclusions about that but the current fact contradict a bit what you are saying.

    I agree that the very first 49 done Runwme (Don) was achieved after tons of restart, he told us. But I don't see any problem there. He wanted to achieve something extraordinary. He put a lot of effort to achieve that (no much players would play 30 hours during 1 week-end for that purpose). He was able to achieve what he wanted to do thanks to his tenacity. I respect that a lot. In real life too you need to put much effort to get what you want.

    On the other hand, we got to oher 49 within a very short time (1-2 weeks). The second one was done by Dansamcam (Dan). I know the man, I really doubt he did many restart to achieve that. Finally the last one was done by Bolloxinbruges (Sam). It was during a single play tournament. Consequently, it just proves that you don't need to restart to post such a low score.

    I agree that low score happen less often in single than in unlimited, but they happen. Moreover, they are very few top players who use tons of restart.

    Now that perhaps different for those who are at the limit of the cut (for a qualifier for example). Those players might play a lot in order to qualify. But once again, if you are willing to put a lot of effort to reach your goal, I don't see where is the problem. At the end of the day, you just get what you deserve.

    In real life, in many aspect, luck play a role (you sometime just need to be at the right place at the right moment for things to happen, without too much effort). But in our context, you have totally the control of what is happening, it's just a question to put enough effort into it (and to be good enough). Now that just a game, and I understand that many players doesn't have time (or motivation, or both) to put much effort into this game. If I was less good, I would not try to death to qualify, because I don't have time for that.

    srellim234:

    Which is perfectly ok for a video game but not for the realism of golf WGT states it wants to achieve.

    I agree that unlimited tourney format is not the best format. I used to like it long ago, but that's boring now. I would not have problem if instead of unlimited you would have like 10 attempts (or 5 or something along this line) and your best score among those attempts is the one that counts.

    But unlimited tourneys, especially for qualifier, favor lesser player (I don't like this terminology, but english is not my mother tongue, so I do not know how to say it with other words). A strong player have a higher probability to post a low score when he starts a round than a lesser player. Consequently, a lesser player needs, in average, to play more rounds to post a low score. Limiting the number of rounds would favor strong player even more I think. The cut would be higher for sure, but that wouldn't be simpler for lesser players.

    srellim234:

    It's hard enough already. Like real courses are limited by real estate, this game becomes a lot more unrealistic and less fun if they have to start moving the tees back to another time zone and make the greens play like an ice hockey rink.

    That's what I am thinking too. The game is hard enough for the vast majority of players. Making it harder will just bring more frustrations. Those who complain now and ask for harder game will be those who will suffer the most for that. They will then come back in the forum to complain even more :) .

    Regards

  • MBaggese
    15,369 Posts
    Tue, Jun 26 2012 3:23 AM

    Very well said Fabian.  

    For those who may not know...you heard from one of the games best. 

  • chrisironsbones
    3,524 Posts
    Tue, Jun 26 2012 4:35 AM

    genorb:
    That's what I am thinking too. The game is hard enough for the vast majority of players. Making it harder will just bring more frustrations. Those who complain now and ask for harder game will be those who will suffer the most for that. They will then come back in the forum to complain even more :) .

    I don't see this happening, in my opinion, WGT will add extra deviation or introduce added extras such as no spin on long irons for low average players to make game tougher, bringing our scores higher, but might leave the players who are struggling alone so they can still score their 68's and feel they are competing while we will start to struggle to score 60 due to added shot randomness.  Mr WGT was saying that they all ready have plans to make game tougher but not introduced it into the game yet, so maybe we will see this soon.

    MrWGT questions & answers

     

    QUESTION 4 -- "What features will be added to make the game harder / scores more realistic?"

    I love this question because I've been wanting to get WGT to this point for a long time now;  a little history... when starting out, we used to get TONS of complaints about the game being too hard, putting too confusing, etc.  Some of the factors related to the equipment itself, others to the tools in the GUI...

    so put a line in for the available features we wanted to introduce at the start, that said...our physics system is amazingly realistic, and there are slew of things we plan to "turn on" that we haven't yet...

    Perhaps Olympic's VUSO was the wake-up call to show us the players were ready;  we are not fans of scores in the 50s.  So over the next few releases... you are going to start to see new physics features being rolled out that will require a much greater degree of course mgmt.  

    So maybe the best players will see these introductions, leaving average players alone until they learn the game and get better equipped to deal with the nastiness we are going to face.LOL  But with that said, they could  make it the same for EVERYONE, i'm just guessing that they might experiment with the better players first to see how it works, because they could handle the tough change, imagine a player who now scores 68 suddenly scores 78, might feel he wasn't progressing and all the complaints would kick off, but a player who can score 56 to 61 could cope better.

     

RSS