|
Post by culallen on Sept 7, 2018 8:51:06 GMT -5
In line with Griff's thinking, I think one thing to keep in mind is that since it is actually a swing "flaw" that is causing the extra distance, we can design to penalize that flaw, just like in TGC2 you could penalize a P/F by putting a hazard on the left for example.
I like to design smaller golf courses, much in the vain of Colonial, etc, where shot making is premium over distance. At Patience Hollow, for example, I have a few short par fours where you can take out driver, but it's going to roll to the very end of the fairway, then you have rough, bunkers, water, etc. between that and the green complex. Just enough that if you're on the tee and the wind's behind you, you have to stop and make sure you don't have too much club. Those kind of holes would definitely discourage the power drive, or penalize someone who unintentionally used it.
And I know Zilker Park was mostly panned by judges in the Survivor course, but I had a few holes where I "invited" the player to cut the corner, but the approach into the small green was not the optimal angle that you would find if you played the intended path of the hole.
So placement of drives and approach angles becomes more important in my mind.
|
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Sept 7, 2018 12:08:58 GMT -5
What happens to your design if HB fixes this "over drive" problem? If designed correctly, nothing. And I think that's the entire purpose of this whole exercise -- trying to figure out how best to curb the advantage this particular shot has while not simultaneously penalizing those players who can't/won't play it. Basically then if the overdrive is taken out of the bag by HBS, it really won't matter much as the elements put in place to combat it won't be reachable off the tee in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 7, 2018 13:16:31 GMT -5
Surprised, I kind of assumed everyone was now aware of the fast/fast advantage. I can't really get the fast backswing, but going p/f is pretty simple, usually gets me an extra 10 or so yards, depending on how wonky my swing line is. Doyley has the f/f pretty dialed, and when we played a skins game a few days ago, it wasn't crazy for him to be as much as 20-25yds in front of a normal drive on a few holes. From a design standpoint, I would be thinking about the shot-shape that hitting the f/f creates - a sweeping draw. Now, can you just manually fade with the shop shaper to straighten it out? Yes, but it' less accurate, more demanding on swing plane. So forgetting that manual correction to ball flight, I'd be thinking about fairway angles. A fairway that is either curved or doglegged from left-to-right would dissuade me from trying to use the fast boost because of the increased demand on accuracy in judging the right-to-left curved shot and precise landing distance, as well as the potential roll-out which goes through the fairway in the case of a dogleg. I agree on the concern about courses just going to 8k, but I don't really think we'll see that tbh. Similar things were said when tgc2 came out, but other than RTJ I don't think we played a single course over 8k on your last season (could be wrong on that...). I don't see it requiring a ton of drastic changes, but in terms of planning out your holes from the tee and thinking of where a full driver distance will end up, this is a very good point of discussion and something I hadn't really considered in depth yet. It sounds like it creates a deeper more dynamic game - if it is a “flaw” it should not be fixed. It may be one of the HB happy accidents, like the no grid setting.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 7, 2018 13:19:43 GMT -5
What happens to your design if HB fixes this "over drive" problem? If designed correctly, nothing. And I think that's the entire purpose of this whole exercise -- trying to figure out how best to curb the advantage this particular shot has while not simultaneously penalizing those players who can't/won't play it. Basically then if the overdrive is taken out of the bag by HBS, it really won't matter much as the elements put in place to combat it won't be reachable off the tee in the first place. Just “curbing” the advantage is taking a very limited view on design - I think. Sounds like a great opportunity for some truly great strategic courses to emerge.
|
|
|
Post by cliffs on Sept 7, 2018 13:20:22 GMT -5
Surprised, I kind of assumed everyone was now aware of the fast/fast advantage. I can't really get the fast backswing, but going p/f is pretty simple, usually gets me an extra 10 or so yards, depending on how wonky my swing line is. Doyley has the f/f pretty dialed, and when we played a skins game a few days ago, it wasn't crazy for him to be as much as 20-25yds in front of a normal drive on a few holes. From a design standpoint, I would be thinking about the shot-shape that hitting the f/f creates - a sweeping draw. Now, can you just manually fade with the shop shaper to straighten it out? Yes, but it' less accurate, more demanding on swing plane. So forgetting that manual correction to ball flight, I'd be thinking about fairway angles. A fairway that is either curved or doglegged from left-to-right would dissuade me from trying to use the fast boost because of the increased demand on accuracy in judging the right-to-left curved shot and precise landing distance, as well as the potential roll-out which goes through the fairway in the case of a dogleg. I agree on the concern about courses just going to 8k, but I don't really think we'll see that tbh. Similar things were said when tgc2 came out, but other than RTJ I don't think we played a single course over 8k on your last season (could be wrong on that...). I don't see it requiring a ton of drastic changes, but in terms of planning out your holes from the tee and thinking of where a full driver distance will end up, this is a very good point of discussion and something I hadn't really considered in depth yet. It sounds like it creates a deeper more dynamic game - if it is a “flaw” it should not be fixed. It may be one of the HB happy accidents, like the no grid setting. Perhaps we might see one of the devs say that this was what they came up with for those wanting an overswing? That's pretty much what it is when you really look at what it does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2018 13:29:20 GMT -5
If designed correctly, nothing. And I think that's the entire purpose of this whole exercise -- trying to figure out how best to curb the advantage this particular shot has while not simultaneously penalizing those players who can't/won't play it. Basically then if the overdrive is taken out of the bag by HBS, it really won't matter much as the elements put in place to combat it won't be reachable off the tee in the first place. Just “curbing” the advantage is taking a very limited view on design - I think. Sounds like a great opportunity for some truly great strategic courses to emerge. "Curbing" the advantage isn't "limited" at all, and what we're doing here is exploring different strategies. We get it...you like the "overswing". It doesn't change the fact that in most cases it will render most holes less than 480 yds (par 4s) as ridiculous without some thought as to how to set a hole up. Nobody is saying it should be taken out, nor is this the thread for that debate. It is, however, extremely shortsighted to believe that this doesn't make a huge difference in how certain holes would/should be set up in the future. I'm not suggesting punishing people for using the overswing, but I'm not going to allow people to overpower every single hole on my course because of an exploit either. Therefore, we're discussing ways to implement different strategies to at least keep things balanced for those that can vs those that can't. I thought that was pretty obvious... Example: I build a 444 yd par 4. When building the hole I plan for a 300 yd rollout off of the tee (in a 0 wind). I then plan that same tee shot given a 12 mph tailwind. At 444 that will generally leave a 144 shot into my green. So I build my green based on that distance with that angle. I have also taken the tee shot with a tailwind into consideration understanding that it may turn that same 144 approach shot into 120-130 yd approach. Now we have the overswing. With that mechanic it's now an approach from 100 yds or less (with a tailwind) that has likely taken the angles completely out of the approach. At the very least it has taken the teeth out of the hole. Now...if I design specifically for the overswing, I just completely screwed the stock driver player. THIS is what we're discussing...ways to bring balance...different ways to bring strategy into courses that provides challenge for both without screwing either.
|
|
|
Post by gamesdecent on Sept 7, 2018 14:08:09 GMT -5
Is it really an exploit though, as in not what the designers intended? The only reason I even know about this issue is due to this thread, so I'm genuinely curious. Judging from the replies, it sounds like it actually takes some practice to pull off and is still risky when attempted?
In my opinion, swinging harder SHOULD generate a longer drive that is harder to control, it's what happens to me when I overswing in real life. As long as it isn't a true exploit, I don't think it should be "punished" per se, it seems it would be just another variable to consider on the occasional hole, not something to revamp my design strategy over.
So rather than approach it from the standpoint of "how can I punish the 330 hitter but still let the 300 hitter play driver as normal", I guess I would approach it from the standpoint of, do I want to take away driver on this hole and if I do how can I do that for both the 300 and 330 hitter equally? Obviously, a 40 yard wide stream running through half of the fairways is going to look ridiculous, so it will probably have to be primarily doglegs and angles. Or maybe that stream runs further away as it moves left across the fairway, making the carry further the more draw the drive has. But at a certain point, if the guy has the distance to beat hazards that other players who have the same opportunity can't, more power to him IMO.
Of course, HB may have already come out and said it's an exploit and all this could be ignored lol.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 7, 2018 14:28:04 GMT -5
Just “curbing” the advantage is taking a very limited view on design - I think. Sounds like a great opportunity for some truly great strategic courses to emerge. "Curbing" the advantage isn't "limited" at all, and what we're doing here is exploring different strategies. We get it...you like the "overswing". It doesn't change the fact that in most cases it will render most holes less than 480 yds (par 4s) as ridiculous without some thought as to how to set a hole up. Nobody is saying it should be taken out, nor is this the thread for that debate. It is, however, extremely shortsighted to believe that this doesn't make a huge difference in how certain holes would/should be set up in the future. I'm not suggesting punishing people for using the overswing, but I'm not going to allow people to overpower every single hole on my course because of an exploit either. Therefore, we're discussing ways to implement different strategies to at least keep things balanced for those that can vs those that can't. I thought that was pretty obvious... Example: I build a 444 yd par 4. When building the hole I plan for a 300 yd rollout off of the tee (in a 0 wind). I then plan that same tee shot given a 12 mph tailwind. At 444 that will generally leave a 144 shot into my green. So I build my green based on that distance with that angle. I have also taken the tee shot with a tailwind into consideration understanding that it may turn that same 144 approach shot into 120-130 yd approach. Now we have the overswing. With that mechanic it's now an approach from 100 yds or less (with a tailwind) that has likely taken the angles completely out of the approach. At the very least it has taken the teeth out of the hole. Now...if I design specifically for the overswing, I just completely screwed the stock driver player. THIS is what we're discussing...ways to bring balance...different ways to bring strategy into courses that provides challenge for both without screwing either. Fair enough about the discussion on the overswing itself. But threadjacking is a bit of a core competence I have... Also - I am challenging what seems to be your base premise. That every course should be for everyone and every hole of similar difficulty. This is a concept that leads to mediocre golf courses. Look at real life play. Resort courses do not get championship level tournaments for a reason - they would get eaten alive. They are there for a relaxing and enjoyable round. The opposite also holds true - it is not like Bethpage Black was designed with the average player in mind. Great courses have easy holes and hard holes. The second hole at Pebble is an easy par five by any measure really, the ninth is a nightmare par four that probably has a higher average score... Great courses are paced and flows. On tournament level courses - players that can hit the ball further with control will and should have an advantage. The best courses challenges players to take the aggressive line with a lot more risk - sometimes enticing them into making the wrong play. If you are building a championship level course you should build it around the game of the best players but make it possible for the Zach Johnson equavilents to bunt it around and have a good round if they are on their game. A lot of the concepts in this thread are really good like cambering fairways, smart angles with off-set tee boxes, dog legs and cross hazards. But a great course is varied. It will have holes where the longer hitter will have a huge advantage, it will have holes where they cannot use their length, it will have holes where they are tempted to try a shot that has a worse pay off than laying back and it will have holes where using their length pays off but the risk of failure is balanced with the shorter hitters shot. Real life Golf design of championship courses deal with this exact issue and there are many great examples to use from there. But in TGC, it seems that rough is taken away as a strategic element has been taken away from designers.
|
|
|
Post by titaneddie on Sept 7, 2018 14:33:24 GMT -5
From Hb Craig-
"This is not an exploit. The added distance on a fast downswing/back swing was done intentionally to add more distance control to the swing. Just like how a slow back swing reduces distance.
Both distance gains are off set by draw on the downswing and accuracy penalty on the swing input for the fast back swing. Essentially sending you offline with the slightest of mistake. If you plan for it and execute it perfectly - it can be beneficial, but if you don't plan or execute it can wreak havoc on your shot.
Without either of the tempo distance "bonuses" fully lofting you driver and long woods will add a couple yards but incur more wind effects on the trajectory.
This was all done intentionally. Again, this is not an exploit."
So I think its safe to say this will remain in the game.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 7, 2018 14:38:59 GMT -5
From Hb Craig- "This is not an exploit. The added distance on a fast downswing/back swing was done intentionally to add more distance control to the swing. Just like how a slow back swing reduces distance. Both distance gains are off set by draw on the downswing and accuracy penalty on the swing input for the fast back swing. Essentially sending you offline with the slightest of mistake. If you plan for it and execute it perfectly - it can be beneficial, but if you don't plan or execute it can wreak havoc on your shot. Without either of the tempo distance "bonuses" fully lofting you driver and long woods will add a couple yards but incur more wind effects on the trajectory. This was all done intentionally. Again, this is not an exploit." So I think its safe to say this will remain in the game. Good stuff from HB. Maybe one time somewhere down the line they will get most of it right....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2018 14:56:09 GMT -5
"Curbing" the advantage isn't "limited" at all, and what we're doing here is exploring different strategies. We get it...you like the "overswing". It doesn't change the fact that in most cases it will render most holes less than 480 yds (par 4s) as ridiculous without some thought as to how to set a hole up. Nobody is saying it should be taken out, nor is this the thread for that debate. It is, however, extremely shortsighted to believe that this doesn't make a huge difference in how certain holes would/should be set up in the future. I'm not suggesting punishing people for using the overswing, but I'm not going to allow people to overpower every single hole on my course because of an exploit either. Therefore, we're discussing ways to implement different strategies to at least keep things balanced for those that can vs those that can't. I thought that was pretty obvious... Example: I build a 444 yd par 4. When building the hole I plan for a 300 yd rollout off of the tee (in a 0 wind). I then plan that same tee shot given a 12 mph tailwind. At 444 that will generally leave a 144 shot into my green. So I build my green based on that distance with that angle. I have also taken the tee shot with a tailwind into consideration understanding that it may turn that same 144 approach shot into 120-130 yd approach. Now we have the overswing. With that mechanic it's now an approach from 100 yds or less (with a tailwind) that has likely taken the angles completely out of the approach. At the very least it has taken the teeth out of the hole. Now...if I design specifically for the overswing, I just completely screwed the stock driver player. THIS is what we're discussing...ways to bring balance...different ways to bring strategy into courses that provides challenge for both without screwing either. Fair enough about the discussion on the overswing itself. But threadjacking is a bit of a core competence I have... Also - I am challenging what seems to be your base premise. That every course should be for everyone and every hole of similar difficulty. This is a concept that leads to mediocre golf courses. Look at real life play. Resort courses do not get championship level tournaments for a reason - they would get eaten alive. They are there for a relaxing and enjoyable round. The opposite also holds true - it is not like Bethpage Black was designed with the average player in mind. Great courses have easy holes and hard holes. The second hole at Pebble is an easy par five by any measure really, the ninth is a nightmare par four that probably has a higher average score... Great courses are paced and flows. On tournament level courses - players that can hit the ball further with control will and should have an advantage. The best courses challenges players to take the aggressive line with a lot more risk - sometimes enticing them into making the wrong play. If you are building a championship level course you should build it around the game of the best players but make it possible for the Zach Johnson equavilents to bunt it around and have a good round if they are on their game. A lot of the concepts in this thread are really good like cambering fairways, smart angles with off-set tee boxes, dog legs and cross hazards. But a great course is varied. It will have holes where the longer hitter will have a huge advantage, it will have holes where they cannot use their length, it will have holes where they are tempted to try a shot that has a worse pay off than laying back and it will have holes where using their length pays off but the risk of failure is balanced with the shorter hitters shot. Real life Golf design of championship courses deal with this exact issue and there are many great examples to use from there. But in TGC, it seems that rough is taken away as a strategic element has been taken away from designers. To be honest, the way that rough was changed is the biggest hurdle to overcome in any of this. I would be the first to say that the rough in both TGC and TGC 2 was ridiculous, but they have gone to the opposite end of the spectrum in this version. There really is zero incentive to stay out of the rough at this point in time, so missing in the rough on an overswing is not really a hazard at all. As to real life courses versus video game courses, I'm not going to get into a debate about that as there are no absolutes. Bethpage is actually a public course in a state park, while Mayacaba is very much a resort that holds a PGA event every year. I can give you a lengthy list on both counts that proves that the thought is in no way an absolute, but it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here. Just so we're clear, this constant argument that people bring to the board in relation to design is "in real life" get's old. This isn't real life...it doesn't have the same human element, it doesn't have the mechanics, it doesn't have the same variables. There are MANY things I can do in real life that I can't do in a golf video game. I'm not limited by and set distance on any specific club in real life...namely I'm not limited to 285 plus rollout on my driver in real life. As designers, we are given specific metrics to incorporate into good designs. We build based on a given set of variables. When one of those variables becomes extremely different from the others, it is going to cause a shift in the way we approach designs. As you mentioned, I always have tradeoff holes, and they usually aren't the same round to round. I don't ALWAYS want hole 2 to be the toughest. Maybe it is in rounds 1 and 4, but I try to create ways to make it a birdie hole or a 50/50 hole in other rounds based on pins and angles to said pins. What you're failing to acknowledge is that on most anything we all consider to be a "normal" course, the overdrive completely dismantles it. Not once have I said anywhere that the goal is to remove the overdrive from a round...as a matter of fact I am completely against taking driver out of a player's hands on holes. I want to make them think about the risk/reward and whether it's the BEST club to use on a given hole, but I still try to give them an option to use it. The problem is that there's no incentive to NOT hit the overswing outside of trees, water, or extreme faced bunkers. You made the statement that all courses should have a variety of holes whether it be tough, medium, or easy...i don't disagree, and if you have played anything I have published you should realize I go to great lengths to try and make that happen (even if the WGT guys b%& about it because they can't birdie a hole that I MADE be a par hole on purpose. A birdie on those holes should be gaining a stroke on the field, not a given). I will also say that I'm not a designer that is hung up on protecting par. A good shot is a good shot...it should not be punished. The challenge is in trying to design in a way that can still challenge some of the top players without making it ridiculous for the more casual guys. You may disagree, but there is a happy medium. at the end of the day, the majority of designers ARE NOT going to put the work in just to design for the very best while alienating 90% of everybody else...and that's exactly what would happen. Most people don't want to play something that is an honest challenge to the top players in this game. On that idea, we are just discussing tricks and tips that can be implemented over rounds to help find that balance. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2018 14:58:40 GMT -5
From Hb Craig- "This is not an exploit. The added distance on a fast downswing/back swing was done intentionally to add more distance control to the swing. Just like how a slow back swing reduces distance. Both distance gains are off set by draw on the downswing and accuracy penalty on the swing input for the fast back swing. Essentially sending you offline with the slightest of mistake. If you plan for it and execute it perfectly - it can be beneficial, but if you don't plan or execute it can wreak havoc on your shot. Without either of the tempo distance "bonuses" fully lofting you driver and long woods will add a couple yards but incur more wind effects on the trajectory. This was all done intentionally. Again, this is not an exploit." So I think its safe to say this will remain in the game. And i don't have an issue with that nor have I ever said that i did. In my original post I stated that it's in the game, so you design with that in mind. The only real issue with it is that they have made heavy rough such a joke that there isn't really incentive to NOT hit that shot outside of water or being stuck behind a tree.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 7, 2018 15:10:30 GMT -5
Fair enough about the discussion on the overswing itself. But threadjacking is a bit of a core competence I have... Also - I am challenging what seems to be your base premise. That every course should be for everyone and every hole of similar difficulty. This is a concept that leads to mediocre golf courses. Look at real life play. Resort courses do not get championship level tournaments for a reason - they would get eaten alive. They are there for a relaxing and enjoyable round. The opposite also holds true - it is not like Bethpage Black was designed with the average player in mind. Great courses have easy holes and hard holes. The second hole at Pebble is an easy par five by any measure really, the ninth is a nightmare par four that probably has a higher average score... Great courses are paced and flows. On tournament level courses - players that can hit the ball further with control will and should have an advantage. The best courses challenges players to take the aggressive line with a lot more risk - sometimes enticing them into making the wrong play. If you are building a championship level course you should build it around the game of the best players but make it possible for the Zach Johnson equavilents to bunt it around and have a good round if they are on their game. A lot of the concepts in this thread are really good like cambering fairways, smart angles with off-set tee boxes, dog legs and cross hazards. But a great course is varied. It will have holes where the longer hitter will have a huge advantage, it will have holes where they cannot use their length, it will have holes where they are tempted to try a shot that has a worse pay off than laying back and it will have holes where using their length pays off but the risk of failure is balanced with the shorter hitters shot. Real life Golf design of championship courses deal with this exact issue and there are many great examples to use from there. But in TGC, it seems that rough is taken away as a strategic element has been taken away from designers. To be honest, the way that rough was changed is the biggest hurdle to overcome in any of this. I would be the first to say that the rough in both TGC and TGC 2 was ridiculous, but they have gone to the opposite end of the spectrum in this version. There really is zero incentive to stay out of the rough at this point in time, so missing in the rough on an overswing is not really a hazard at all. As to real life courses versus video game courses, I'm not going to get into a debate about that as there are no absolutes. Bethpage is actually a public course in a state park, while Mayacaba is very much a resort that holds a PGA event every year. I can give you a lengthy list on both counts that proves that the thought is in no way an absolute, but it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here. Just so we're clear, this constant argument that people bring to the board in relation to design is "in real life" get's old. This isn't real life...it doesn't have the same human element, it doesn't have the mechanics, it doesn't have the same variables. There are MANY things I can do in real life that I can't do in a golf video game. I'm not limited by and set distance on any specific club in real life...namely I'm not limited to 285 plus rollout on my driver in real life. As designers, we are given specific metrics to incorporate into good designs. We build based on a given set of variables. When one of those variables becomes extremely different from the others, it is going to cause a shift in the way we approach designs. As you mentioned, I always have tradeoff holes, and they usually aren't the same round to round. I don't ALWAYS want hole 2 to be the toughest. Maybe it is in rounds 1 and 4, but I try to create ways to make it a birdie hole or a 50/50 hole in other rounds based on pins and angles to said pins. What you're failing to acknowledge is that on most anything we all consider to be a "normal" course, the overdrive completely dismantles it. Not once have I said anywhere that the goal is to remove the overdrive from a round...as a matter of fact I am completely against taking driver out of a player's hands on holes. I want to make them think about the risk/reward and whether it's the BEST club to use on a given hole, but I still try to give them an option to use it. The problem is that there's no incentive to NOT hit the overswing outside of trees, water, or extreme faced bunkers. You made the statement that all courses should have a variety of holes whether it be tough, medium, or easy...i don't disagree, and if you have played anything I have published you should realize I go to great lengths to try and make that happen (even if the WGT guys b%& about it because they can't birdie a hole that I MADE be a par hole on purpose. A birdie on those holes should be gaining a stroke on the field, not a given). I will also say that I'm not a designer that is hung up on protecting par. A good shot is a good shot...it should not be punished. The challenge is in trying to design in a way that can still challenge some of the top players without making it ridiculous for the more casual guys. You may disagree, but there is a happy medium. at the end of the day, the majority of designers ARE NOT going to put the work in just to design for the very best while alienating 90% of everybody else...and that's exactly what would happen. Most people don't want to play something that is an honest challenge to the top players in this game. On that idea, we are just discussing tricks and tips that can be implemented over rounds to help find that balance. Nothing more, nothing less. Look Griff - I was not critizing your design knowledge, skills or courses in any way. Just reacted to how some posts came across, to me. Only thing we may have a different view on is real life design and how it relates to the game, but I have a feeling we may be closer than what comes across in the way we write even there.... Overswing is in the game, and now designers need to design for more than one fixed carry distance. Ported courses will need some work in many cases. Nothing more, nothing less.. ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2018 15:18:20 GMT -5
To be honest, the way that rough was changed is the biggest hurdle to overcome in any of this. I would be the first to say that the rough in both TGC and TGC 2 was ridiculous, but they have gone to the opposite end of the spectrum in this version. There really is zero incentive to stay out of the rough at this point in time, so missing in the rough on an overswing is not really a hazard at all. As to real life courses versus video game courses, I'm not going to get into a debate about that as there are no absolutes. Bethpage is actually a public course in a state park, while Mayacaba is very much a resort that holds a PGA event every year. I can give you a lengthy list on both counts that proves that the thought is in no way an absolute, but it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here. Just so we're clear, this constant argument that people bring to the board in relation to design is "in real life" get's old. This isn't real life...it doesn't have the same human element, it doesn't have the mechanics, it doesn't have the same variables. There are MANY things I can do in real life that I can't do in a golf video game. I'm not limited by and set distance on any specific club in real life...namely I'm not limited to 285 plus rollout on my driver in real life. As designers, we are given specific metrics to incorporate into good designs. We build based on a given set of variables. When one of those variables becomes extremely different from the others, it is going to cause a shift in the way we approach designs. As you mentioned, I always have tradeoff holes, and they usually aren't the same round to round. I don't ALWAYS want hole 2 to be the toughest. Maybe it is in rounds 1 and 4, but I try to create ways to make it a birdie hole or a 50/50 hole in other rounds based on pins and angles to said pins. What you're failing to acknowledge is that on most anything we all consider to be a "normal" course, the overdrive completely dismantles it. Not once have I said anywhere that the goal is to remove the overdrive from a round...as a matter of fact I am completely against taking driver out of a player's hands on holes. I want to make them think about the risk/reward and whether it's the BEST club to use on a given hole, but I still try to give them an option to use it. The problem is that there's no incentive to NOT hit the overswing outside of trees, water, or extreme faced bunkers. You made the statement that all courses should have a variety of holes whether it be tough, medium, or easy...i don't disagree, and if you have played anything I have published you should realize I go to great lengths to try and make that happen (even if the WGT guys b%& about it because they can't birdie a hole that I MADE be a par hole on purpose. A birdie on those holes should be gaining a stroke on the field, not a given). I will also say that I'm not a designer that is hung up on protecting par. A good shot is a good shot...it should not be punished. The challenge is in trying to design in a way that can still challenge some of the top players without making it ridiculous for the more casual guys. You may disagree, but there is a happy medium. at the end of the day, the majority of designers ARE NOT going to put the work in just to design for the very best while alienating 90% of everybody else...and that's exactly what would happen. Most people don't want to play something that is an honest challenge to the top players in this game. On that idea, we are just discussing tricks and tips that can be implemented over rounds to help find that balance. Nothing more, nothing less. Look Griff - I was not critizing your design knowledge, skills or courses in any way. Just reacted to how some posts came across, to me. Only thing we may have a different view on is real life design and how it relates to the game, but I have a feeling we may be closer than what comes across in the way we write even there.... Overswing is in the game, and now designers need to design for more than one fixed carry distance. Ported courses will need some work in many cases. Nothing more, nothing less.. ;-) I agree...which is why I started this thread. What I want to avoid is designers falling into the trap of using distance and shrinking every fairway as a way to design for the extra distance. The entire point of this thread is to have an open discussion among designers to see what ways each of us may incorporate into our designs and design philosophies. I also never took anything you said as an attack on me or how I design. My "tone" usually comes off as combative, but I don't intend it that way. I'm just very blunt, direct, and matter of fact.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 7, 2018 15:23:08 GMT -5
I'm just very blunt, direct, and matter of fact. Way better than the opposite!
|
|