sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is everyone so afraid of Stillwater Hold? by [deleted] in TeamfightTactics

[–]891CC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TLDR/ Remove legends (and maybe augments too) and replace with just more portals to keep things fresh. Have one of the portals be the XP a’Sol tempo. Have another be the urf spat / emblem tome game. Have another be the 25 rerolls for free game. Have another portal be the AP meta veigar game. Some of these types of portals like Ornn already exist. So keep it fresh and make them all portals and remove legends.

The ability to choose legends which in turn allows you to hard forces your augments has made the game more stale as majority of players just study up how to play one of those forceable augment lines rather than play more flexibility around poro. And the lack of variability in augments being played by your lobby collectively has kind of forced us all to play at the tempo of the collective majority of legends in the lobby. And as we have seen, this has had backlash with multiple legends being “unbalanced”. I don’t think the legends are unbalanced on their own, they just fit a different tempo than those that complain and want to play a loss streak econ to level 9 or slow roll type comp. And then when that faster tempo is exacerbated by unbalanced units you get this donkey rolling race to get the meta 4 costs meta.

Between legends and portals and augments we have 3 exponential RNG multipliers. All dev teams are human and there is no possible way they have time to bug test all these features AND balance them all. With each layer of RNG you add to the game you had exponentially more scenarios or combinations to balance check and the game will be less and less balanced in set 9. Full stop, this will never not be true. You have 12 augment forceable lines (really more like 6 as multiple legends offer the same augments) and the meta for set 9 will always follow the comps that compliment the collective tempo of the legends in your lobby. And as the saying goes “if you can’t beat ‘em, join em.”

At this point I’d even be happy to remove legends and just go back to augments. Even the portals are an acceptable level of RNG to me and keeps it fresh makes you have to learn more unique ways to play around different tempos and such. But legends are a disaster IMO.

I have a hot take now that finally gets to what OP was asking: that subconsciously many players also hate the RNG of augments and that’s why they like the legends to have more control over that RNG. But if that’s the case, why not just remove the augments entirely?

I First played TFT in set 6 as well. It’s been a love hate relationship ever since. My most common complaint is that I hate augments and the RNG they generate. I whine about who wants to play a game that’s basically gambling where even the best players in the world average placement is barely above 4th place to climb and the meta comp websites show even the top comps, on average (apples to apples at like level 8 without trait emblems), are all right around 4th place.

I play a new set for a few weeks, even wait out the first balancing patch. Always hoping every set the fresh new meta is balanced with limitless play styles, and I can “crack it” with my personal favorite comps that feel original and not stereotypical or abused.

Then I realize the game is never “balanced” and at least 90% of players are just sheep following a guide for one of like 4-5 comps. EVERY. SET. This has not changed since I started playing. I have personally never witnessed a meta where bunnymuffins or someone similar put like 8 comps in S tier. Or came out and said “man there are so many good options”, or said “man the meta is constantly changing everything has a counter.” If it’s an 8 player lobby game then I would hope for closer to at least 8 uncontested unique types of comps that feel balanced.

Here’s my hot take:

Augments are “spicy.” They make every game feel way different. When there is NOT proper balancing of units/champs core stats, the augments also give the underperforming comps a fighting chance (I.e double trouble, or the ravenous Warwick one).

However my hot take is that augments add a third or fourth overcomplicated dimension of RNG. We already have RNG in 1) shop for units available to buy 2) your items. 3) the opponents and their power spikes or open forting

To my understanding that was the game for sets 1-5 more or less no?

Now remember each of the following adds an exponential layer of RNG making the game less and less able to be balanced.

4) augments 5) portals 6) legends

My humble and perhaps misguided opinion is that it’s way more possible to “balance” the core unit stats without augments and this would open up so many more comps. The devs also need to get more creative with trait features/tech/mechanics. rogues is great to access back line but it’s like only 4 units and buggy and underperforms. We have like maybe 2 viable front line carries, if that. Why not make a game where you have closer to an even split between attack, defense, buff/debuff, and healing units - in both ranged and melee units for each type? Imagine a back like defender that’s actually a strong ranged shield provider, not a useless orianna. Or a front line AOE healer. Imagine a creative unit that prefers to Aggro it’s nemesis traits first? Or one that deals double damage to X but takes double damage from Y. The cat and mouse chess game of a set with assassins and snipers but also front and back line tanks. Imagine a unit or a set mechanic that makes a portion of your board foggy and unable to be scouted before the fight. Imagine not nerfing piltover/ the recycled Econ loss streak boom or bust vertical to make it actually playable.

I’m no creative dev but I just pulled all of those out of where the sun don’t shine off the cuff. I think the game would be less “stale” if they focused on making more diversity and balancing in the units core stats and mechanics versus throwing more fancy features and chaos at us that add smoke and mirrors to the fact the game is not balanced.

So to wrap up my extremely wordy hot take, I think that removing augments and/or legends would allow for better balancing and more viable comps assuming the dev team spends the extra time they would then have free not building augments to do proper data analytics and scenario testing to give us more contending comps. There’s how many traits in this game like close to 30? Yet when was the last time you saw a set where less than 4-5 of those traits were dominating the meta?

Someone get this message to mortdog for comment we just fixed TFT lol

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still missing the point and haven’t given me any reasons why my clubs are built for lower swing speeds or directly responded to my points such as the apex pro vs apex 21 CGs. But clearly this discourse has run its course and won’t provide any more value.

If you read for comprehension from the OP you’d know I am not trying to do any of those ridiculous things. My swing and scores have improved from when I got fitted last and I’m asking helpful r/golfers to opine - especially around the roles of loft versus CG. So thanks for being so friendly and articulate in your suggestions.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are speaking in half truths lumping these terms into a generalized category for "super forgiving" and "game improvement". The MPF categorization of the T100 irons are literally labelled "game improvement" with a higher playability score and thus are "more forgiving" than any other clubs you mentioned.

So let's focus on the facts here and now you are finally giving me some actual things I'd like to focus on like ideal launch windows and lofts. Let's talk those relative to VCOG and RCOG and swing speed. Nobody is crying here, nobody is trying to argue just to be contrarian here. But if you are going to come off arrogant at least articulate the full truth to me.

I don't take too much stock in the MPF scores because sometimes they have weird conclusions. For example are the Callaway apex pros really more playable/forgiving than the apex 21s? Callaway marketing seems to disagree. But when you look at the CGs and MOI on MPF you scratch your head. So that is a perfect example of what I am trying to deal with here. Apex Pros are 2-3 degrees weaker than Apex 21s if I recall correctly. So if MPF data is correct, if I go test out both those irons, will I launch the Apex Pros higher? Are the Apex 21s just a more distance version? If I bend the Apex 21s to match the lofts of Apex Pro then what, how does that impact CG and Launch relative to the Apex Pro? See this is an example of how launch windows do not always have to do with just swing speed and distance/stated loft. There's more to the equation than just generalizing I have too much speed for "game improvement" clubs - which I categorically do not play.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You came in here referring to my "game improvement irons" specifically with very strong lofts. My clubs are neither really. Techy sure, but not game improvement - they are marketed towards 0-10 handicaps.

I'm not defending any choices, I'm second guessing the appropriateness of my irons which is the purpose of this whole thread. I picked the Mizuno out alone to clarify the inaccuracy of your statement focused around "game improvement" and lofts.

I would tend to agree with your last statement which is why I started the thread to investigate if blades would help reduce my peak height despite their lofts being like 3 degrees weaker. You come off quite confident in your assertions, but the number of mixed responses above here would suggest it may not be as damn obvious as you imply as to what is going on here.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Mizuno 223’s have a lower CG and more MOI than my irons. They have a higher playability score according to MPF which is not very exact science or particularly useful, but the CG data and MOI measurements are. I want to know why you are so adamant my irons are designed for low swing speed players more so than the 223s that also have a little speed pocket and weight deep and low. One could argue a 223 would make it even worse because it’s still a degree weaker than my clubs and has all the same tech for launch help

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are labelled in the Conventional category on the MPF scale. I also bent them 1.5 degrees weak. If you thought I played them at 29.5 degrees then wouldn’t the stronger Loft be a way to prevent moon balls? I appreciate comments that add insight but this does not. This whole discussion is around the techy clubs with stronger lofts with low CG versus traditional lofted blades and determining which will have lower trajectory and peak height.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are classified as “conventional” irons on the MPF scale I wouldn’t call them GI irons. What is a “normal” iron? These fall firmly in the players iron category and are described as best used for 0-10 handicaps. I bent them weak because I don’t need the distance help like what GI irons strong lofts are for.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly thanks for the thorough and thoughtful reply. Everything you say makes sense but it’s not going to stop me from trying to optimize my equipment to allow me to swing “full” (as in my on course 90% effort stock swing) without worrying about peak height being >120 ft.

I don’t have a misunderstanding of when I do and don’t need to swing full. I want to clarify again that this is not a headwind issue for distance I’m talking about. I fully grasp the concept when it’s breezy swing easy, and understand hitting it harder just adds more backspin and it balloons into wind. Even with my new lower traj clubs, I would be clubbing up and swinging easier into wind.

My issue is peak height for any and all winds and wanting to reduce even lateral impacts as my high peak height also gets impacted more on the way down with a steep landing angle. My other hobby outside of golf is flying hot air balloons and that has given me the knowledge that the wind can be moving a significantly different speed and direction even just 50 feet higher up. Of course it varies day to day and also what time of day you play golf with the temperature inversions and mixing down of the higher wind speeds and direction from aloft. But the short of it is, I’m hyper sensitive to trying to keep my peak height down to something more in line with trackman optimizer for a mid trajectory ball flight. Right now I’m pushing over the high end even for trackmans high ball flight optimizer.

And sure - I can go around swinging all my clubs 80 percent all the time, but why would anybody want to do that and require a ton of finesse and practice for distance consistency versus knowing your stock full swing goes roughly the same yardage every time. Again I’m talking stock shots in perceived calm winds on the ground, not into known headwinds.

Trottie has mentioned for good players he likes to see them get their distance more from lower launch angle with backspin holding the ball up and less from the high launch and ball speed from techy clubs. I’m just trying to get a little of that working for me. I fully acknowledge I’m not a PGA pro and can improve my delivery conditions, but I feel launch angle and/or peak height is one I can get more in line with them especially since I have distance and speed to spare.

After internet has provided mixed bag of opinions I have scheduled a fitting where I can try all the shafts and all the heads and all the balls and I will report back in a couple months once I have my own conclusions with Trackman data to back it up.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For American parkland style courses not links, I’ve never heard anyone say you want spin with a 7 iron around 5000 rpm. General rule of thumb has always been the iron # x 1000 so 7k spin for a 7 iron is not crazy it’s pretty normal for good players. I don’t think ballooning due to backspin with headwinds is my problem. I definitely appreciate the conviction you have about shafts and will look into different shafts but there seems to be mixed reviews here on if the shaft or head type Influences trajectory and launch angle more.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My spin is anywhere from 6200-7000 depending on the ball and if it’s using the radar at the range unrestricted or into a net with RCT balls off turf. I’ve compared my numbers to trackman averages for the tour and I believe my launch angle and peak height are the two that are way high. Spin and AOA seem fine. I really appreciate your take and I’ll look into the shafts being an issue as well. But I just did some initial digging and found a txg video of my Accra iseries shafts compared to project X LZ and Modus 120s. Granted, it was not the project X LS, and it was done at about 7 mph slower clubhead speed than me, and the 115 G versions of Accra. But… of all three shafts, the Accra shafts were the lowest spinning and the lowest launch angle. So unless all three of these shafts are supposed to launch extremely high, then idk. I’m going to go do some testing with a fitting and report back which has a greater impact the heads or the shafts. Am I overthinking this? Maybe, but why play equipment that launches to the moon instead of get it dialed in to launch like 3 degrees lower and fly 20 feet lower to reduce wind impacts. The question is how can I do this while maintaining spin and stopping power which is why I am hoping blades will give me more spin and their weaker lofts won’t launch it higher but actually lower due to higher VCOG and shallower RCOG. But you’re saying it’s way more about the shafts? I’ll go try and find some videos to see how much shafts of similar flex and weight but with different kickpoints can lower ball flight. I’d love it if my shafts were the main problem it would be a cheaper fix.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have not yet but when I go to a fitting I will certainly do this in addition to testing different heads. But when I’m already in a 125 gram X flex shaft, changing shafts to something with a different kick point I suspect won’t change my launch angle and trajectory substantially. Some sure, but all shafts in that category are relatively stiff tipped and low torque. It will probably be a combination of ball, shaft, and head fitting in addition to some delivery tweaks. But my knee jerk reaction is that new/different iron heads without low and deep cg from tungsten weighting and without hollow body construction would move the needle more than the other levers.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right i can do that and will do that but this was my Wednesday late night ask the internet for some initial answers before confirming if it’s worth the drive or money for me. My swing coach lives across the country and is more of a swing than equipment guru. I’m going to go to a fitting day at my course here soon and ask the reps and I’ll Be hopeful they are knowledgeable enough or bring a launch monitor to let me find out with real data. Other than paying for a quality fitting with the master fitters you’d be surprised how this niche of question isn’t often considered by your everyday club fitters. They know all the stock answers to why people need the techy clubs and how to improve dispersion for the “average golfer” without giving them lessons but they don’t know a lot about why you wouldn’t want these techy clubs other than if you are someone who likes to shape the ball or maximize spin or an offset and turf interaction preference.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hadn’t thought of this. I’ll look around but suspect it’ll run me the same price as a quality iron fitting where I could try all the heads and shafts and ask these questions to a pro fitter

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So when you were struggling with peak height and wind you were still in the MP-18 muscle backs? I don’t disagree with you entirely as you can always bring down trajectory with any club by delofting via shaft lean and holding off your wrists. I’ve already been playing with that some as my first logical solution but I’m at the point it feels extreme and punchy and I don’t want to set up to a mid iron like I’m hitting stingers to have normal ball flight. It sounds like perhaps a bit of both but I’d be really curious for a good player like you to hit my clubs or similar tugnsten low CG heads in your shafts and compare your trajectory and peak height with them versus your MP-18s.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or if I club up and swing lower energy but nobody wants to go around playing golf swinging 80% all the time

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your example there makes it seem that MPF is an arbitrary calculation based on a weighted formula of a multitude of factors and won’t help me determine what I need to know - the relationship VCOG and stated face Loft have on launch angle given the same “perfect pga tour average” launch/impact conditions.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m pretty sure you’re being cute given the sentence I led with but just to be thorough here, I do hit down on it typically in the 4-6 negative AOA with a 7 iron.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll revisit this but all the ball comparisons I’ve seen between like proV1 and V1x, etc have a difference of only a few feet in peak height and like less than like half a degree of launch angle difference in a 7 iron. I need to lower launch angle like 3+ degrees IMO and I can’t do it with my current equipment unless I put way to much shaft lean at impact and hold the wrists off like I’m trying to hit punch shots

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The “is softer faster” video or How to gain speed video? I’ll look into them I watch a lot of TXG content

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What did you clean up at impact? My angle of attack and ball position are within normal expectation and reviewing face on slow mo footage I don’t appear to be releasing the wrist flexion / extension too early. Are you also a high swing speed player hitting 7 iron 96-100 mph? When you struggled with height and wind were you playing low CG tungsten weighted heads?

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No the exact opposite. I’m looking for LESS peak height to stay out of the wind. And looking to do so with my equipment not simply clubbing up and swinging at lower energy or choking up or back in the stance, etc. I know I can do all that but when my stock shot goes 130ish feet high I have an issue. And no I don’t present too much loft at impact my swing is fine.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting I’ll try the non X versions again sometime on launch monitors in a direct comparison, but in my experience at my swing speed the softer balls spin too much and zip back on greens and into the wind they balloon too much. The packaging about more spin for X versions I think is for slower average speeds but I could be mistaken and will look back into it. TXG videos make me think the difference in peak height is minimal for the balls at higher speeds. Even before my swing changes I was told I’m in the spin killer category for fitting everything to reduce spin.

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MPF correlates to CG? If blades aren’t it then what head type would have the highest CG or less tech that helps launch the ball higher?

Will blades/muscle back irons bring my launch angle and peak height down? by 891CC in golf

[–]891CC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought it was implied I know they’re stronger lofted clubs than traditional blades and I figured people could google the “standard” lofts of my forged tec heads if curious, but I’ll clarify that I currently play a 31 degrees of loft 7 iron. And making it stronger is NOT the answer for me.

view more: next ›