|
Post by Celtic Wolf on Mar 29, 2019 13:08:30 GMT -5
It must be hard to check out all the courses old and new in the database and pick 6 for each week. I'm guessing they'd check the forums and see what's creating a buzz, check them out and add them to a list of suitable courses for each flight. Certain designers will get more forum traffic as they have a track record of good courses. It can be hard for newer designers to get noticed or for someone to give your course a chance. Getting reviews of your course can both help get it noticed and valuable feedback. I've learnt not to get too caught up with my courses and to design for yourself and not a tour spot. I've been fortunate enough to get a course on tour and have a couple of courses handicapped. It took me until my 4th submitted course to get a tour stop, so it may take a bit of time to noticed. I want to throw in a comment based on something you said but not aimed at you if that makes sense. You said it was your fourth course before you got a tour stop but it may take time to get noticed. Speaking from my own personal point of view as a scheduler, designers get noticed long before their first tour course. There are a number of designers whose courses I played, that while the course may not be what I am looking for, or just short of tour worthy, done enough to get me very interested in what they are going to produce in the future. In your case, I knew it was only a matter of time before you got a tour spot, and there are others out there I feel the same about. I just can’t comment on every course I play, but us schedulers are noticing but not just us, I get messages from others recommending courses all the time. And while courses will slip by, there are only so many hours in a day, and limited tour spots, most courses are checked out one way or another. Yeah you're right, I didn't really put it across right though. Desert Wolf was the 4th course I submitted to TGC Tours but was my 8th course all in. I felt the first 4 weren't good enough for submission and didn't want to waste anybody's time by submitting them. By the time I got to my 5th I felt that I had learnt enough to maybe get approved, which it did. Every course I submitted has been approved since, I guess I was trying to advise designers not to expect instant approval and don't get too downbeat if their course doesn't get many plays. I guess getting approved was probably the start of getting noticed and being lucky enough to have a get video reviews of my courses. Entering the Survivor Contest helped as it gave me feedback that I needed regarding designing, expectations and my approach to designing. As you said there is an abundance of courses and not enough time or slots for everyone, but even getting picked up by a society can be rewarding.
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Mar 31, 2019 14:48:54 GMT -5
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. No no no - not what I'm saying at all - before the subject changed to "Stars are meaningless" which has no facts to back it up . . . . what I was saying is that we need to not forget great courses from the past when scheduling. Let's not ALWAYS have a brand new course to try/play. For instance - Pebble Beach - When was the last time Pebble Beach was on a tour and not just a qualifying for PGA (for example). Not a clue what that rating is BTW LOL That is all I'm saying. It's nice to have a few courses where you remember what you did LAST year when the pin position was in a certain spot. 90% of all new courses are really REALLY good but have no history in them which is what makes a GREAT course. One that you play more then 4 times in one week and move on. I'm already in a society that plays a new course every day. I didn’t read though the whole post and all the replies, but I want to point out that some of the top courses of 2-3 years ago don’t get reused much because the bar of design and the tools continues to increase, and the older material starts to look real dated. Also as each game has completely different gameplay and physics, some of the older courses don’t play well in the new version. Some designers update their classic tracks and republish which I truly enjoy and gives the course new life. These remastered courses do get highly considered by the schedulers. Courses not retouched that got ported from TGC1 to 2 to 2019 without changes are very easy to identify and very few still hold up.
|
|
|
Post by mrooola on Apr 1, 2019 1:41:42 GMT -5
Late to the party and I didn't read the last 30 or so entries but I just want to say three things.
Someone mentioned that not everyone plays with Master club's and that par 5s should in general be shorter because of them not being reachable in two. Bad take imo because most designers put in more than one set of tees. If you play beginner club's then in general you are not supposed to play from the tips. It's the same in real life. Now you may say that the tour pretty much always play from the tips and you are forced into playing the tips... yeah because it's a tour event. Deal with it.
OP also mentioned that the truly great courses has 4+ ratings yet has only given out 5 stars 10 times. I don't get this. A 4 star rating would lower the average score on all 4+ rated courses. If 1000 players played a course and 999 of them gave the course 4 stars and 1 player gave it 3 it would get a sub 4 star rating. I'm not exactly sure how ratings in game are shown (I'm guessing this scenario would actually show as 4 stars) but the math don't add up.
I've never bothered looking at ratings or plays myself. Heck... I haven't put up a course thread since TGC1. I get that the constant recognition/feedback loop is integral to many but I just design for my self and that's reward enough on its own. Discussions like these are not unhealthy, but not really productive either. We can have endless discussions on why a 4 star course is better than a 3 star course, but since there is no guideline used by all players on how to rate a course it's not really important. Some would use a 1 star as not great. Some would use 2 stars as good. Some use 4 stars as good and everything better than good is 5. Some just put 5 on everything. Some puts a 5 because they think the rating on the course is too low and want to bump it up a bit. Some put 1 because the wind was high. I'm not saying that stars does not have any importance, but it's also a bad way do differentiate great ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 23:16:47 GMT -5
Now I feel a little guilty using the system I use
|
|
|
Post by yeltzman on Apr 2, 2019 7:23:41 GMT -5
To me the standard of courses in TGC 2019 are at an all time high,Maybe with this LIDAR more real courses are showing up which i enjoy more,But if you look at cypress Dunes as there ever been a better looking natural course produced for game outstanding.
On rating if i finish a course i will always give 5 stars no matter if its top quality like course above or just a plain average RCR.I think if you have ever designed a course you know the effort what goes into it.To me never liked the rating system because there are a few people who just like to give one to everything good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by chadgolf on Apr 3, 2019 23:20:07 GMT -5
To me the standard of courses in TGC 2019 are at an all time high,Maybe with this LIDAR more real courses are showing up which i enjoy more,But if you look at cypress Dunes as there ever been a better looking natural course produced for game outstanding. On rating if i finish a course i will always give 5 stars no matter if its top quality like course above or just a plain average RCR.I think if you have ever designed a course you know the effort what goes into it.To me never liked the rating system because there are a few people who just like to give one to everything good or bad. I think all of the courses are pushing each other forward to new ideas. Lidar is definitely contributing less predictable landing areas and very challenging greens/pin positions. The other way, pushing the themes to their limits and researching new ways to plant inspires designers to even attempt some of the more difficult RCRs. Starting the process over again.
|
|
|
Post by linkslover on Apr 4, 2019 6:22:51 GMT -5
The star system is open to abuse, intentional or not. Bad play or poor weather (ie high wind) could cause somebody to give a low star rating.
I much prefer to look at how many people like/favourite the course. The higher that number, relative to number of plays, the better a course is likely to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2019 8:42:19 GMT -5
I think people favourite way too many courses. I only do it if I think the course is special to me and it only gets a favourite if I give it 5 stars.
It's the same with giving 5 stars to courses. I want to have a special selection of courses that are my top rated. I don't want it to be clogged up.
|
|
|
Post by coasterroyalty on Apr 5, 2019 8:41:28 GMT -5
The only rating system that should be used is Rocharbage cans. I judge courses based on how they relate to a rocher, so in other words every course gets 5 Rocharbage canes because a rocher is disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by ualkoebs on Apr 6, 2019 10:26:47 GMT -5
[Late to the party and I didn't read the last 30 or so entries but I just want to say three things. Someone mentioned that not everyone plays with Master club's and that par 5s should in general be shorter because of them not being reachable in two. Bad take imo because most designers put in more than one set of tees. If you play beginner club's then in general you are not supposed to play from the tips. It's the same in real life. Now you may say that the tour pretty much always play from the tips and you are forced into playing the tips... yeah because it's a tour event. Deal with it. OP also mentioned that the truly great courses has 4+ ratings yet has only given out 5 stars 10 times. I don't get this. A 4 star rating would lower the average score on all 4+ rated courses. If 1000 players played a course and 999 of them gave the course 4 stars and 1 player gave it 3 it would get a sub 4 star rating. I'm not exactly sure how ratings in game are shown (I'm guessing this scenario would actually show as 4 stars) but the math don't add up. I've never bothered looking at ratings or plays myself. Heck... I haven't put up a course thread since TGC1. I get that the constant recognition/feedback loop is integral to many but I just design for my self and that's reward enough on its own. Discussions like these are not unhealthy, but not really productive either. We can have endless discussions on why a 4 star course is better than a 3 star course, but since there is no guideline used by all players on how to rate a course it's not really important. Some would use a 1 star as not great. Some would use 2 stars as good. Some use 4 stars as good and everything better than good is 5. Some just put 5 on everything. Some puts a 5 because they think the rating on the course is too low and want to bump it up a bit. Some put 1 because the wind was high. I'm not saying that stars does not have any importance, but it's also a bad way do differentiate great ones. ] ---- ------- Perfectly said! Agree with everything. I think we are in a great time with great people publishing very good courses. I do feel that some of the latest (rcr,LIDAR) DO feel a little to stale/safe/similar to each other? I enjoy personally elevation changes, scenery and heavy risk reward on courses which fictional courses seem to bring to the game. People are so accurately trying to replicate a real course that the little nuances get dropped for accuracy sake. Which leads to the staleness I feel playing them, almost kinda sterilized feeling. I think the future should be Lidar used on crazy different plots of land for a Fictional course effect!
|
|
|
Post by hershalcrustofsk on Apr 10, 2019 23:28:09 GMT -5
Interesting convo, very accurate title-average but good, as I’m sure many feel that way. Read about half of it, but some valid points on both ends. Having designed quite a few courses over the 3 versions of the game and knowing what goes into it, I would agree there’s a lot of average courses and a lot of Awful ones. For me though there is an abundance of unbelievable courses. I can usually tell by the second hole if a course is worth playing. Fortunately doing the ranger thing, I spend most of my casual rounds playing courses that are ending up on tours and there are very few that I don’t think are very well done. When rating a course, I actually don’t look for perfection (whatever that is I golf design), if I feel a designer really took their time and took care of details, I give it 5 stars (providing the course was fun to play). I would say if you’re looking for the best tracks use the forums and join all the tour societies. If you like a course in the society play one or 2 rounds, if you love it play 4 and favorite for your own library. Either way, occasionally you’re going to get stuck playing average, but all the “best” courses will end up on one tour at some point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 0:18:40 GMT -5
If I rated courses on how i played, every course would get one star.
I’ve given up on critiquing courses - according to most of the designers here if you don’t design courses yourself your opinion doesn’t count. Because what would golfers know about golf courses after all?
I’ve given out about 5-10 X 5 star courses in the 3 versions of the game, at least 3 of them are Boomers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 1:41:53 GMT -5
If I rated courses on how i played, every course would get one star. I’ve given up on critiquing courses - according to most of the designers here if you don’t design courses yourself your opinion doesn’t count. Because what would golfers know about golf courses after all? I’ve given out about 5-10 X 5 star courses in the 3 versions of the game, at least 3 of them are Boomers. Only the courses that feel special to 'me' get a 5 star and a favourite. People can hate me for it but I don't care
|
|
|
Post by cephyn on Apr 11, 2019 7:02:19 GMT -5
If I rated courses on how i played, every course would get one star. I’ve given up on critiquing courses - according to most of the designers here if you don’t design courses yourself your opinion doesn’t count. Because what would golfers know about golf courses after all?I’ve given out about 5-10 X 5 star courses in the 3 versions of the game, at least 3 of them are Boomers. Weird comment, especially given the makeup of the judging panels in the contests. Not sure how you come to this conclusion at all. This hasn't been my experience in the design community here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 7:07:59 GMT -5
Just my experience when I’ve played new courses, so I don’t bother now and just play whatever comes up in the societies I play in.
|
|