Playing Ladder Matches on Tiger Woods Online?

[iceats]

All, I would like to see TWO combined on the ladders but only if it were available to all players on the ladder - Even if we do this during the open Beta, after TWO goes full production not everyone will want to pay the subscription fee to play. So with these issues to be overcome I don't see how we could combine the two (no pun). To reiterate, only if TWO is available to all participants could I support the integration.

Ice

[Faterson]

Thanks for that feedback, Iceats. You're then basically saying, though, that the integration will never happen.

I don't see why it should be a requirement for everyone to be able to play TWO. Can you please explain this? There is no advantage to playing Tibbets or Nivlac on TWO rather than WGT. I assure you they are equally destructive opponents on both platforms. We're always only talking about the same pair of players: and whether they choose to play their Ladder match on one of the 2 WGT courses, or on one of the 5 TWO courses, really only affects those 2 players, not anyone else.

Plus, as I said, it would never be required from anyone to play a single Ladder match on TWO, precisely because TWO is not available for everyone. Since TWO matches will never be required from anyone, why couldn't they be integrated? They would be an option, nothing more.

PS: For those of you already on TWO, WGT players have founded their own group there, 40 members so far.

[Mwh65]

I think what iceats meant was that you can't play TWO without paying unlike WGT.

Anyway there will be no integration of TWO into anything at WGTLS. If I was to do anything with TWO it would have it's own separate site like two.agls.org.uk

[Faterson]

I think what iceats meant was that you can't play TWO without paying unlike WGT.

I know! My question to Iceats still stands, though: since TWO would only be an option, and no one would ever be required to play a single round there, I don't see why that would pose an obstacle to integrating TWO results into the Ladders. I just don't understand the logic behind this.

You know, like in real-life golf, you have the PGA Tour, European tour, etc. It is not required that (for example) all European players play on the PGA Tour! Far from it. Despite this, there is only one unified world golf ranking.

Anyway there will be no integration of TWO into anything at WGTLS.

Yes, you made that quite clear to me when I asked you via PM, Mark. I'm simply asking other site members if anyone else thinks that unified "online golf world rankings" might be a good idea. And I'm happy to see Gao & Iceats are not totally adverse to that concept. Finally, I hope Mark may also change his mind one day. For example, Mark, it might very well happen that WGT get into financial difficulties and never produce another course, while there'll be (say) 12 courses on TWO, and 90% of players spend 90% of their online-golf playing time on TWO, not WGT. If that ever happened, denying the posting of TWO match results to the ladders would only hurt them.

Also, as I hinted, this site might experience an influx of hundreds of new players, primarily from the TWO environment, if posting TWO match results were allowed on the current ladders. Just saying!

If I was to do anything with TWO it would have it's own separate site like two.agls.org.uk

That would no longer interest me much. It would strike me as a needless duplication of everything you have already set up here. A waste of time & energy. It may be just me, but I can hardly keep up with my playing obligations on the 3 Ladders and League Tables, so joining yet another set of the same ladders/events specifically for TWO is probably out of the question for me.

[iceats]

Faterson,

Respecting and acknowledging Marks last post, I am offering this response to answer your inquiry to me.

I think my oringinal post on this was based on a couple of comments you had made earlier as well as some knowledge of how difficult it may be to establish a fair and equatable rating system for two different types of play on two very different playing fields. Also as Mark indicated I feel that to be ranked fairly that all the players should have the same opportunities to play the same courses on which the ranking is based.

I know! My question to Iceats still stands, though: since TWO would only be an option, and no one would ever be required to play a single round there, I don't see why that would pose an obstacle to integrating TWO results into the Ladders. I just don't understand the logic behind this.

One of your most recent comments was how fast you have advanced on TWO, in status and capabilities, and your comparison between TWO and WGT even further amplified why the two are significantly different. Many players will opt out of having to pay in order to compete against fellow ladder members on courses where they may be ranked. On the other hand, ir I have paid the subscription fee, why would I want to play on WGT. For example, if you play 90% of your matches on TWO and I play all of mine on WGT do you not see a distinct issue with me being competitive against you (as you know, rankings are based on how you play against other players). It gets worse if you imagine someone playing all their matches on TWO, how would I ever be able to challenge (play against) them. I may not, but they may achieve a ranking in the ladder where I would desire to. Especially if the challenge system is put in place. Someone who is carrying a 69 average on WGT but a 62 ave on TWO (because they play a majority of the time on TWO) is at a real disadvantage if I challenge them and they have to play on WGT to satisfy the challenge.

You know, like in real-life golf, you have the PGA Tour, European tour, etc. It is not required that (for example) all European players play on the PGA Tour! Far from it. Despite this, there is only one unified world golf ranking.

In looking at the Unified World Golf Ranking, please see below, you will note it is not based on a 1 for 1 accounting of courses or tournaments played. It is much more complicated than that. As can be seen, playing different events and playing on different TOURS brings different accounting into play. The accounting even modifies itself over time. (information obtained from Wikipedia)

Beginning in April 1989, the rankings were changed to be based on the average points per event played instead of simply total points earned, subject to a minimum divisor of 60 (20 events per year). This was in order to more accurately reflect the status of some (particularly older) players, who played in far fewer events than their younger contemporaries but demonstrated in major championships that their ranking was artificially low. Tom Watson, for example, finished in the top 15 of eight major championships between 1987 and 1989, yet had a "total points" ranking of just 40th; this became 20th when the system changed to "average points". A new system for determining the "weight" of each tournament was also introduced, based on the strength of the tournament's field in terms of their pre-tournament world rankings. Major championships were guaranteed to remain at 50 points for the winners, and all other events could attain a maximum of 40 points for the winner if all of the world's top 100 were present. In practice most PGA Tour events awarded around 25 points to the winner, European Tour events around 18 and JPGA Tour events around 12.

In 1996, the three year period was reduced to two years, with the current year now counting double. Points were extended to more of the field, beginning in 2000, and were no longer restricted to integer values. Beginning in September 2001, the tapering system was changed so that instead of the points for each result being doubled if they occurred in the most recent 12 months, one eighth of the initial "multiplied up" value was deducted every 13 weeks. This change effectively meant that players could now be more simply described as being awarded 100 points (not 50) for winning a major. Beginning in 2007, the system holds the points from each event at full value for 13 weeks and then reduces them in equal weekly increments over the remainder of the two year period.

I think it would be possible but like I mentioned earlier, I could only really support the integration if all players can play all courses.

Ice

[Faterson]

a fair and equatable rating system

We're falling into the same trap here as with the setup of the 3-hole knockout tournament.

Nothing in life or golf is fully "fair and equitable". Out of the 4 major golf tournaments, 3 are played in the US, and 1 in Britain. How is that "fair and equitable" towards British players? Or towards European players? Or towards Asian players?

The answer is: it isn't fully "fair and equitable". In the same way, WGT would be the default platform for the integrated ladder ratings, and TWO would only be the secondary, optional platform for the integrated ladders.

One of your most recent comments was how fast you have advanced on TWO, in status and capabilities

That's totally irrelevant, Ice. There would only be a match between 2 (or more) Ladder participants, and both/all of them could advance as fast on TWO, in status and capabilities, as they wished to.

Many players will opt out of having to pay in order to compete against fellow ladder members on courses where they may be ranked.

As has been said many times, TWO would only be optional, never required from any player.

On the other hand, if I have paid the subscription fee, why would I want to play on WGT.

Because that's the way these Ladders are set up. Just as in real life, the major tournaments are 3 in the US, and 1 in Britain. No major golf tournament takes place in continental Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Australia, or in Antarctica. That's just the way it is!

In looking at the Unified World Golf Ranking, please see below, you will note it is not based on a 1 for 1 accounting of courses or tournaments played.

Exactly! The rankings are biased towards certain courses and tournaments. In the same way, the integrated ladder rankings would be biased towards WGT, while still leaving the option for integrating TWO results.

I think it would be possible but like I mentioned earlier, I could only really support the integration if all players can play all courses.

Ice, you'd only be setting up another "fair and equitable" trap for yourself. Because folks would then start demanding a 50% — 50% ratio between matches on WGT and TWO, etc. etc. There would be hysterical outbursts if the ratio were 51% — 49%, etc. Once you give in to the dogmatic demands of "fair & equitable" fanatics, there's no rescue.

My approach is different. I don't give a damn about 100% "fair & equitable" because I know there's no such thing. My focus is on what is best for the Ladders to thrive, and to consider whether a modification would be reasonably fair. I think that allowing TWO match results to be integrated in the Ladders would both help the Ladders thrive and be reasonably fair. (Hot Six would need to be cancelled, though, see Gao's remark.)

In the last week, I spent maybe 85% of time playing TWO, and only 15% WGT. It's too bad I wasn't allowed to record any of those TWO matches here in the Ladders. I suggest that, over time, there may be many players like me, and that therefore forbidding the recording of TWO matches here will hurt the Ladders. It's not that TWO is necessarily a better game than WGT; but it allows for faster play. A direct duel (or even a 4-some!) takes as much time there as a single-player game; 45 minutes or so for 18 holes. For many of us who are excessively busy, this will often make the difference between whether we're going to play a WGT or a TWO round; if you're pressed for time, you'll opt for TWO. Other reasons for choosing TWO are the far greater variety (5 stroke-play courses, freely selectable playing conditions including pin placements, etc.).

[SLASHX]

This is a ridiculous idea.

Ladders are game specific. How in the hell can you rank people on a ladder when they are playing 2 completely different games and expect that to work?

Faterson this is the WGT ladder for players that play WGT. Go find a TWO ladder and join it and don't try to subject the rest of us to your ridiculous idea.

Just my two cents... and i know a long winded argument is coming Faterson... trying to convince me that this is an outstanding idea because you thought of it... but save your time because it wont change my mind... it's retarded.

Think about it...

[Faterson]

This is a ridiculous idea.

It's a superb idea, SlashX, whether you fail to capture it or not. Integration is the word, not segregation. You might just as well object to the world golf rankings because not everyone plays on the PGA Tour.

how can you climb a ranking ladder when there are people on it playing an entirely different game than the one you are playing???

It's not an "entirely different game". They are both golf games utilizing much the same principles. WGT will always be the default game, so that's the common ground you're asking about. Players could always freely choose whether they wish to play their ladder match on WGT, TWO, or both. If they couldn't agree, they'd only play it on WGT. It's all very clean & logical.

[jeffdos924]

IT's really anything BUT superb. ... and all the argument is moot. I'm pretty sure that Mark already said it wasn't happening, so why keep bringing it up? Some people are just like a dog with a bone ... just won't let it drop :)
TWO is an OK game...a few more bells and whistles, but basically the same as the PGA Tour Golf that I played on the old SNES. It doesn't excite me enough to be a regular player there, and definitely not enough for me to consider a monthly fee to play it.

[SLASHX]

Well with Fatersons thinking ... since that snes game is a golf game then it should be allowed to be played on the ladder as well. LOL gimme a break. I am glad to hear that the powers that be here on the ladder have some common sense and have shot this idea down.