Forums

TWO is cartoon golf...

• tibbets 1,043 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 6:40 AM

  You're right, they are different levels of extraordinary.  Only 1 person has shot a 64 on Bethpage while numerous people have shot an albatross!  Thanks highlighting my point so effectively.

  So long as one is comparing things on equal scales, it matters not what section of the comparison pool you are drawing from.  So comparing the best to the best is the same as comparing the worst to the worst, or the average to the average.  Have a look for yourself at the scoring averages of the top 200 pros and compare then to the scoring averages of the top 200 here.  Go ahead and expand the number to 500 or 1000 if you like, the range of difference will be nearly the same.

  Most people average in the 70's here at WGT.  The 196th top PGA golfer in 2007 averaged 72.83.  In real life very few golfers can even break 100.

  Yes, galaxies apart is right.

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 6:56 AM

  I have an idea to make this really real. Tibetts gets to be Tiger here.

  A.)  Break your index finger Tib.

  B.) Play your last weekly challenge under excruciating pain with every click and you win!

  C.) Decide you have to get it fixed so put a cast on it for a few months.

  D.) Meanwhile, in the 3 months you're off 12 different winners show up on the weekly challenge leaderboard.

  E.) The cast comes off but the finger is pointing at a different angle with different feeling in it-you come back with a slight disadvantage but you're determined.

  F.) You win 1 out of 3 tournaments you enter until you adapt and then we're back to normal-you win everything.

  The cream will always rise to the top and I believe you're quite different than the target audience for WGT. Making this game real (to me) doesn't mean making the scores equal to real life. It means facing a new and different challenge every time I tee the ball up! It's not that way now and it's that way at every single golf course you will ever play in real life.That's the "real" I'm looking for.

   

  YJ

   

  (just keeping it light here, folks)

   

   

   

• tibbets 1,043 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 7:08 AM

  I'll tell you the biggest reasons why scoring is lower at TWO.  It's a short list.

  1. The use something called Putt Preview, which I admit is a really bad idea, and most of the top golfers at TWO agree would like it to go away.   If you take that away, that will raise scores by 3-5 strokes on its own.
  2. The Meter is too easy.  When using the 3 click method, there's a larger range of "perfect shot" as opposed to the tiny white line used here.  If TWO had the same meter system as WGT, scores would go up dramatically.  Conversely, if we used the TWO meter system here, scoring would go down dramatically,as most every shot would be a perfect hit.  I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've actually missed a "perfect shot" on a putt in TWO.  Too easy to hit the perfect shot.

  I see the physics engines as being about equal.  There are differences in the 2 games however.  You have to account for your lie in TWO, while here every shot is considered to be on flat ground, whether you're on the side of a hill or not.  You can draw and fade the ball in TWO, while here there is no such option.  So while the graphics are worse, the number of variables you have to take into account in TWO far outweigh what you have to consider here at WGT. 

  Once we get lie adjustments, draw/fade options, and adjustable pin positions here the games will be more similar in their approach.  Right now, the WGT approach to the game is quite linear by comparison.  It has plenty going for it of course, but it does have quite a ways to go before this Beta phase is over.

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 7:21 AM

  Bingo! My exact point earlier when I referenced Links. Having to factor in all the lies you run into during play would really make this game realistic but only if I can adjust my stance, clubface, etc. I don't know if this is possible in a browser game-is it? You say TWO does it so it must be.

  Just having random pins throws enough variables into the game for me and seems like it might be a little easier to do. I asked a question a while ago about this and never got an answer so I'll ask again. If this is a linear game then couldn't the pins be cut and pasted to different locations?

  YJ

   

• tibbets 1,043 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 7:25 AM

  For some reason WGT ditched it's stance control option that used to be available when the game was just a 9-hole CTTH thing called the Charity Challenge.  Even adding that back into the game would help things tremendously.

  As far as the pin positioning thing, they said it was possible over a year ago, but have yet to change them.  Not sure what the deal is with why they haven't changed them, but obviously it's much harder to do than perhaps they initially thought.

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 8:26 AM

  Which pin do I aim at?

   

  

   

  

  Can you imagine the possibilities of this game.....?

   

  YJ

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 9:37 AM

  tibbets:

  You're right, they are different levels of extraordinary.  Only 1 person has shot a 64 on Bethpage while numerous people have shot an albatross!  Thanks highlighting my point so effectively.

  No, don't twist my words around. I wasn't talking about Bethpage; I said a round of 64 and an albatross are totally different things. A round of 64 is a far more frequent occurrence in professional golf than scoring albatrosses; that's a fact.

  Another fact is that you're a top player on this site, so your scoring a 64 here cannot be compared with Snaike's scoring an albatross over at TWO upon his first visit of a course. Snaike was a TWO newbie – not only on that course, but in the game itself. No "putt previews" were involved in Snaike's albatross and (presumably, at least some) eagles.

  So, this is mixing apples and oranges in a very crude fashion.    Comparing elite players with elite players (in TWO, WGT or real life) is, once again, off-base and misleading. One must compare average, non-professional players on WGT, TWO, and in real life. In comparing average players, it becomes evident that WGT and TWO are galaxies apart in terms of realism, which is greater on this site.

  Judging either WGT or TWO by how Tibbets fares in those games is as absurd as judging the people of Jamaica based on how fast Usain Bolt can run. It's utter nonsense. To learn about the true nature of Jamaicans, one must take a representative sample of all Jamaicans, which will, by necessity, mostly include average Jamaicans. In the same way, when comparing WGT and TWO, one must look at how average players fare in those games. Everything else is a grave fallacy of logic.

• Fuzzygazz 1,469 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 9:38 AM

  I like Wendy's. Its tough being addicted to golf and then I get hungry at 3 am. Wendys is still open.  Peace  (move the pins..ha ha )

• tibbets 1,043 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 11:11 AM

  I'll give you a refresher in Chaos Theory mathematics another time Faterson.  For now, it's case closed on every level.  No one can refute the truth of what I've said.  Both games have regular players with averages far below that of real golf, professional or otherwise.  Period.

  /thread

• Faterson 2,902 Posts

  Tue, Nov 3 2009 11:25 AM

  tibbets:

  No one can refute the truth of what I've said.

  The truth is, Tibbets, that you've been mixing apples and oranges in this thread, obfuscating the obvious: that TWO makes it far easier for players to achieve fabulous scores than WGT does it. Anyone who takes a look at Snaike's (a TWO rookie's) scorecards will readily admit it. As to why it's so important for you to deny the obvious, I really don't know.  

  tibbets:

  Both games have regular players with averages far below that of real golf, professional or otherwise.

  Yes, but TWO players' scores are incomparably even less realistic than those achieved here.

  In the same way, you might say that "Mexico and Monaco are far smaller countries than the US". Very true! But Mexico approximates the size of the US a lot more than Monaco, just as WGT approximates the realistic aspects of a round of golf a lot more than TWO does. (That doesn't automatically mean WGT is a better game than TWO; only the aspect of realism is discussed here.)