|
Post by grinder12000 on Mar 25, 2019 8:19:20 GMT -5
"They aren't supposed to enjoy playing it - they're supposed to enjoy beating other people on it. So if I get a bunch of people who enjoy casual rounds at my courses, I know I haven't achieved my purpose."
I enjoy the courses that make me feel like I just climbed a mountain to shoot under par. We try to find courses that are absolutely punishing (but realistic) to play our money games on. A course should make you feel like you just earned that birdie. I am thankful there are designers out there with that mindset. I really enjoy the high quality RCR's as well. The those course get some pretty high rating has from what I have seen
|
|
|
Post by cephyn on Mar 25, 2019 9:05:05 GMT -5
I want to see tha actual fact behind star ratings. I think the conclusion is BS. Where are the numbers and statistics. Or is this based on a fuzzy facts Every TGC golfer I know disagrees. But I am assuming TGC is the biggest group , I could be wrong. cephyn designs courses that are not meant to be fun which is fine. They are for a very small group of people and he does not care about stars. Which is OK. As he says he will get low ratings ( I assume if the players ONLY rate on experience theory is true) for me every course starts at 3 stars and typically it’s all they get. I have given out maybe 10 5 stars in my life. I don’t care if a designer took a year or 15 minutes. If I enjoy a course, it’s fun, challenging and has many decisions to make it gets a higher rating. Somfar every rating I have seen on a course is pretty right on. 3.5 courses are average and 4+ have all been outstanding if they have a 1000 plays 1) you have me confused with someone else, I'm pretty sure. 2) 1000 plays? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get 1000 plays? I don't have 1000 plays across all 3 of my courses.
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Wolf on Mar 25, 2019 9:47:24 GMT -5
I want to see tha actual fact behind star ratings. I think the conclusion is BS. Where are the numbers and statistics. Or is this based on a fuzzy facts Every TGC golfer I know disagrees. But I am assuming TGC is the biggest group , I could be wrong. cephyn designs courses that are not meant to be fun which is fine. They are for a very small group of people and he does not care about stars.  Which is OK.  As he says he will get low ratings ( I assume if the players ONLY rate on experience theory is true) for me every course starts at 3 stars and typically it’s all they get.  I have given out maybe 10 5 stars in my life.  I don’t care if a designer took a year or 15 minutes. If I enjoy a course, it’s fun, challenging and has many decisions to make it gets a higher rating.  Somfar every rating  I have seen on a course is pretty right on.  3.5 courses are average and 4+ have all been outstanding if they have a 1000 plays 1) you have me confused with someone else, I'm pretty sure.  2) 1000 plays? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get 1000 plays? I don't have 1000 plays across all 3 of my courses. I'm guessing he meant csugolfer60, going by Dario's post earlier on this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 10:02:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by csugolfer60 on Mar 25, 2019 10:24:30 GMT -5
1) you have me confused with someone else, I'm pretty sure. 2) 1000 plays? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get 1000 plays? I don't have 1000 plays across all 3 of my courses. I'm guessing he meant csugolfer60 , going by Dario's post earlier on this thread. I think I might have missed something here, cause I'm not sure about the conclusion that was made that grinder12000 disagrees with, but I agree with most of what he said above.
|
|
|
Post by grinder12000 on Mar 25, 2019 10:51:53 GMT -5
All I'm saying (at the moment) is STARS do mean something. Look at the contests. The winners are also the ones with a larger star score. In the World Design Contest most of the top courses are rated four and the lower courses are in the 3.6 average range.
So according to some people the 4 star course must be EASY because people are rating them high and the lower courses MUST be harder because they are rated lower?
I disagree completely that people ONLY rate courses by how easy they are so they can score lower. Any course with 1000+ plays is getting rated from TGC Players who are not just "fun recreational players" who only give stars if they played well. I think MOST golfers rate like adults and not children.
Not that this was the original topic. it's just sad we have no great legacy courses where memories are made . . . and lost :-)
(feels good to get you guys riled up - it was getting boring around here)
|
|
|
Post by csugolfer60 on Mar 25, 2019 11:10:39 GMT -5
All I'm saying (at the moment) is STARS do mean something. Look at the contests. The winners are also the ones with a larger star score. In the World Design Contest most of the top courses are rated four and the lower courses are in the 3.6 average range. So according to some people the 4 star course must be EASY because people are rating them high and the lower courses MUST be harder because they are rated lower? I disagree completely that people ONLY rate courses by how easy they are so they can score lower. Any course with 1000+ plays is getting rated from TGC Players who are not just "fun recreational players" who only give stars if they played well. I think MOST golfers rate like adults and not children. Not that this was the original topic. it's just sad we have no great legacy courses where memories are made . . . and lost :-) (feels good to get you guys riled up - it was getting boring around here) I completely agree that people don't only rate courses based on how they score and how easy they are. Actually, I would say the opposite is true - that they rate them based on their own personal experience, which can be anything they'd like and that there is absolutely no right or wrong way to rate or experience courses, which is why the only real objective thing you learn from star ratings is how many stars they are rated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 11:12:05 GMT -5
All I'm saying (at the moment) is STARS do mean something. Look at the contests. The winners are also the ones with a larger star score. In the World Design Contest most of the top courses are rated four and the lower courses are in the 3.6 average range. So according to some people the 4 star course must be EASY because people are rating them high and the lower courses MUST be harder because they are rated lower? I disagree completely that people ONLY rate courses by how easy they are so they can score lower. Any course with 1000+ plays is getting rated from TGC Players who are not just "fun recreational players" who only give stars if they played well. I think MOST golfers rate like adults and not children. Not that this was the original topic. it's just sad we have no great legacy courses where memories are made . . . and lost :-) (feels good to get you guys riled up - it was getting boring around here) It is a wide variety of opinions and star giving system out there. But there is a contingent that rate a very good course lower than it deserves sometimes (I say sometimes, nothing is absolute) because it was subtly difficult or even outright difficult all around. This may be shown by giving what should subjectively be a 5 star course a 4 star rating or a subjectively 4 star course a 3 star rating, etc.
Reading threads over the years I will occasionally still see a comment here in spoiler threads about "this course got one star from me". Those are the ones that get me. No course ever used on TGCTours is a 1-star course. Ever. One star are the auto-gen trash courses that are all over the designer and shouldn't ever be published. But that goes to the subjectiveness of someones rating system as well. Some may rate the course among only already good courses like we have here at TGCTours. Then there would be one star TGCT courses. In game, however, I think that you should compare courses to all of them out there. A whole slew of courses we would ordinarily never play here or in the major side Societies are one-star auto-gen. That is my system (when I use it).
Then it goes onto the non-TGCT (Rod, when you abbreviate: TGC is the game, TGCT is here at TGC Tours - just my OCD talking) players who rate courses. Those are the ones that are more likely to lower star a harder course. But again, that is subjective to one's rating system. And there is where I think the lower ratings may come from a bit more. This also takes into account the above subtle lower ratings of a 3 star rating on what should be a 4 star course, etc.
Lots of factors going on and you like to skew to absolutes sometimes. Take for instance that I rarely rate courses at all unless they are new. If it is a course I have played before I won't rate it every time I play, and if I had played it in previous versions of TGC then I might not rate it again in the new one.
A star system is a bit of a catch-all flawed system at any rate. 5 stars isn't enough to quantify, and only one thing to rate makes it a bit ambiguous as to how one rates it. If there were, say 3 or 4 things to rate, then it would be better feedback for designers. Something like Course Quality (0-10), Fun Factor (0-10), Accuracy (0-10), Replayability (0-10).
I've rambled on long enough, and congrats to anyone who read all of this diatribe. You get a gold star!
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Mar 25, 2019 11:16:54 GMT -5
All I'm saying (at the moment) is STARS do mean something. Look at the contests. The winners are also the ones with a larger star score. In the World Design Contest most of the top courses are rated four and the lower courses are in the 3.6 average range. So according to some people the 4 star course must be EASY because people are rating them high and the lower courses MUST be harder because they are rated lower? I disagree completely that people ONLY rate courses by how easy they are so they can score lower. Any course with 1000+ plays is getting rated from TGC Players who are not just "fun recreational players" who only give stars if they played well. I think MOST golfers rate like adults and not children. Not that this was the original topic. it's just sad we have no great legacy courses where memories are made . . . and lost :-) (feels good to get you guys riled up - it was getting boring around here) i would imagine, certainly at the time, that most/all of the people rating the world cup courses were either the other people taking part, or people (like me) following the contest; and therefore could be argued maybe are more "appreciative" of what makes a good course (looks, challenge, realism...) Maybe as those courses go on tour, they will get some lower marks.
The major desgin comp will be VERY interesting, in terms of their rating. Because they are going to be HARD. I predict some low scores as they get into the 300-1000 plays area...
|
|
|
Post by boffo on Mar 25, 2019 11:23:13 GMT -5
So from the sounds of things here, the more specific suggestion you're trying to make is that you think only courses rated with 4+ stars from 1000+ plays should be used on the Tours?
|
|
|
Post by cephyn on Mar 25, 2019 11:25:06 GMT -5
So from the sounds of things here, the more specific suggestion you're trying to make is that you think only courses rated with 4+ stars from 1000+ plays should be used on the Tours? I hope that's not his position, since the only way for a lot of courses to GET 1000 plays is to be on tour.
|
|
|
Post by boffo on Mar 25, 2019 11:29:16 GMT -5
So from the sounds of things here, the more specific suggestion you're trying to make is that you think only courses rated with 4+ stars from 1000+ plays should be used on the Tours? I hope that's not his position, since the only way for a lot of courses to GET 1000 plays is to be on tour. That's what I'm trying to clear up since he keeps mentioning 4 stars and 1000 plays. Want to see if those are just arbitrary numbers for discussion purposes or if he's expecting designers to have to upsell and beg for plays if they ever want to see their new course show up on Tour.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Mar 25, 2019 11:37:35 GMT -5
When scheduling, the criteria Dan and I use is this:
Does the course meet a standard of quality in terms of technical execution and playability. We rely on reviewers (of which my scheduling partner is one) to determine whether that standard is met.
Then we decide if the course is appropriate for the level of play. Sometimes, we intentionally include courses that we think are better suited for higher levels.
At no point do we consider whether a course is "great" or well-received by the general community. This is intentional, and it allows us to pick from a wider array of available courses, and include courses that might not be selected for play in many other societies.
We do recognize that this creates an opportunity for us to miss some great courses in favor of something less great. If you think there is a course we've overlooked, or one that you would like to play for an official event, please add it in the course suggestion thread.
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Mar 25, 2019 12:00:59 GMT -5
When scheduling, the criteria Dan and I use is this: Does the course meet a standard of quality in terms of technical execution and playability. We rely on reviewers (of which my scheduling partner is one) to determine whether that standard is met. Then we decide if the course is appropriate for the level of play. Sometimes, we intentionally include courses that we think are better suited for higher levels. At no point do we consider whether a course is "great" or well-received by the general community. This is intentional, and it allows us to pick from a wider array of available courses, and include courses that might not be selected for play in many other societies. We do recognize that this creates an opportunity for us to miss some great courses in favor of something less great. If you think there is a course we've overlooked, or one that you would like to play for an official event, please add it in the course suggestion thread. i'm probably going blind- where is the course suggestion thread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 12:04:11 GMT -5
When scheduling, the criteria Dan and I use is this: Does the course meet a standard of quality in terms of technical execution and playability. We rely on reviewers (of which my scheduling partner is one) to determine whether that standard is met. Then we decide if the course is appropriate for the level of play. Sometimes, we intentionally include courses that we think are better suited for higher levels. At no point do we consider whether a course is "great" or well-received by the general community. This is intentional, and it allows us to pick from a wider array of available courses, and include courses that might not be selected for play in many other societies. We do recognize that this creates an opportunity for us to miss some great courses in favor of something less great. If you think there is a course we've overlooked, or one that you would like to play for an official event, please add it in the course suggestion thread. i'm probably going blind- where is the course suggestion thread?
It probably needs a sticky in the Challenge Circuit subsection, IMO.
|
|