Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 14:06:12 GMT -5
I know there is a "designer talk" thread already running, but I wanted to start this one to address a potential new issue directly. First and foremost, let's please keep this on topic and civil. Meaning, this isn't the place to say the game is broken, not good, sucks....or the designer is horrible, etc....or to call individuals out by other designers. If you want to do that crap, please take it to another thread. This is meant to be a thread to discuss ideas and merit of course design as it relates to a new change.
The reason I wanted to create this thread and talk about it is the new "overpowered" driver. Some are aware, some aren't...but apparently there is an exploit being used that allows players to completely bomb the driver. If I'm correct, it is usually accomplished by hitting a driver fast/fast and pretty straight, but I may be mistaken about the mechanics. What I'm not mistaken about is that I have seen others talk about it, and yesterday I witnessed a 480 yd par 4 being reduced to a 150 yd approach and a 575 yd par 5 being nothing more than a drive and iron. Without going into too much detail, I know how the hole plays with a stock driver in this game, and watched first hand how the hole plays with the "overpowered" shot. Once again, this thread is in no way here to call people out for using the shot or b%&ing about the fact that it's in the game. The fact of the matter is it's in the game, nobody is using a 3rd party anything to do it, and until (if) it's patched players will use it. Combine that with the 2w being 100% from the deck and it means that anything shorter than a 650 yd par 5 is reachable in 2.
Now...what I want to do is discuss how we, as designers, build courses with this knowledge. I would very much like to hear how others would approach this, and I will be adding my opinions on the matter as well. Please offer up your ideas or suggestions as well, as we can all learn from each other. Anybody that believes that they can't learn from other designers is not nearly as good as they think they are. That being said, don't come into a stream and tell me I don't know how to sculpt bunkers ever again...you know who you are.
What I'm hoping NOT to see is the inevitable easy way out of 9 out of 10 new courses being 8000 yds long. That seems to be the answer whether in TGC or in real life: players hit longer, stretch the course out. There is a time and place for it on individual holes, but just doing it for the entire course lacks imagination and limits creativity in my opinion.
I personally try to use different techniques and distances to create angles both off of the tee and on approach shots. I'm thinking I'm going to have to ramp up that process a bit in the near future. Up to now you could use 300 yds after rollout as a base measurement for setting up holes off of the tee (whether it be the middle of the fairway or bunker placement). While I have been using 300 yds as a general measurement, I now think I will have to use it more precisely while creating doglegs, sightlines, and camber. It is something I will also have to put quite a bit of thought into as I've never intentionally taken driver out of a players hands off of the tee. What I do is give a player options and make them think about whether driver is the best choice, but it's there if they just want to grip it and rip it. while I don't want to take driver out of the player's hands, I have ZERO issue taking the "overpowered" driver out of said player's hands. I think it will be interesting in that it will make me change my approach how I'm setting up my courses a bit. Finding challenge in shorter par 4s and par 5s will be a new task to examine.
Anyways....what ways will you guys change things up or will you just continue to do what you do regardless?
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Sept 6, 2018 14:39:49 GMT -5
This would cause me to change a few things on any course I created with the intention of challenging the top players:
- Fewer par 5s. I would look at building a Par 70 course with just 2 par 5s. - Shorter par 5s. I don't typically create par 5s in excess of 575 yards, but I would avoid it. That way, anyone could reach the green in two.
- More trouble around the green. Steeper run-offs, more water, deeper bunkers. - Shallower greens. - Front-to-back sloping greens. - Fairway cut offs that limit the distance someone could achieve off the tee.
Essentially, I would do as much as possible to discourage reaching the green in two, if my course were going to target the top players.
For courses aimed at anything less than the top players, though, I would probably not change anything. Want to abuse game mechanics? Go for it, I don't care. I'd rather my course be enjoyed by many than have it ruined trying to protect against bad game mechanics.
|
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Sept 6, 2018 14:44:09 GMT -5
This is a definite eye-opener for me and I immediately tried to look up w/ some hard info on this phenomenon, you know, for "educational purposes" only . Not too much luck so far other than a couple of vague mentions. As a designer. The first thing I'd need to know is what the average carry/rollout is on this "overdriver." Also what's the ball flight like? Is it a straight shot? Is there a tendency to pull/draw? How easily can you work the ball left or right w/ the loft box? All this info would be key to figuring out how to discourage its use. W/o that info, think the first way to combat it is to take the "runway" fairway out of play. Straight and flat beyond the intended landing point would be out and you'd have to combat w/ a combo of camber, fairway angle and hazards/cross hazards. I do think you're right, though, just making 8,000-yard courses, is not the solution. Nor are the other TGC1 fallbacks of max fast/firm and all pins on borderline green/yellow. Yes, you make the course more difficult for overdrivers that way, but you also make the course more difficult for everyone who plays. I also think its fair to ask if a designer is intending his or her course for tour play as that's where, I would guess, the exploit would be most likely used. If I'm just designing a course for the sake of designing a course, and don't really care what anyone shoots on it, I'd probably keep doing what I'm doing. However, I may be more cognizant of the course setup if I intend on making a course for tour/society play. All of the above is a long-winded way of saying, this definitely has my attention, but I need more info before figuring out if/how I combat it as a designer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 14:45:02 GMT -5
This would cause me to change a few things on any course I created with the intention of challenging the top players:
- Fewer par 5s. I would look at building a Par 70 course with just 2 par 5s. - Shorter par 5s. I don't typically create par 5s in excess of 575 yards, but I would avoid it. That way, anyone could reach the green in two.
- More trouble around the green. Steeper run-offs, more water, deeper bunkers. - Shallower greens. - Front-to-back sloping greens. - Fairway cut offs that limit the distance someone could achieve off the tee.
Essentially, I would do as much as possible to discourage reaching the green in two, if my course were going to target the top players.
For courses aimed at anything less than the top players, though, I would probably not change anything. Want to abuse game mechanics? Go for it, I don't care. I'd rather my course be enjoyed by many than have it ruined trying to protect against bad game mechanics.
Good thinking, Patrick. I've already been in the habit of doing more par 70s versus 72s as is. I also considered more split level fairways (or cut offs as you called them) that would limit the effectiveness of the "overpowered' driver. I questioned how much of a deterrent that would actually be given the changes to heavy rough...meaning there's almost no penalty for being in it. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by SkinniePost on Sept 6, 2018 14:51:40 GMT -5
Maybe look at some of the RCR's that play tough in this game, since they were never designed around a certain drive distance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 15:18:43 GMT -5
Maybe look at some of the RCR's that play tough in this game, since they were never designed around a certain drive distance? No offense, Skinnie, but RCRs are the last things I will look at. Those in particular will be overpowered from the get-go. Pretty much every RCR I've played since the inception of this franchise that plays "tough" was because of the greens and/or the approach distance into the greens. There are some that play tough off of the tee, but that's the exception, not the rule. Example: 480 yd par 4 at Oakmont. Craig has made the course with tough greens, so at 480 that is a challenging hole. No real danger off of the tee...it's the long approach into a tough green that's the challenge. Usually that that's a stock 300ish drive that leaves 180 yds into the green. Now it's a pretty easy 330 yd drive that leaves 150 into said green. That's a HUGE difference in difficulty, brother. The difficulty there always has and always will be the green itself...but it's a helluva lot easier at 150 than 180. I promise I'm not trying to get in your chili or be condescending at all here, man. I've just been around for a loooong time and know what RCRs are and what they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by SkinniePost on Sept 6, 2018 15:33:30 GMT -5
Another idea is skip risk reward, and make trade off holes. Like the longer the drive the worse the angle into the green, elevation, etc...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 15:45:59 GMT -5
Another idea is skip risk reward, and make trade off holes. Like the longer the drive the worse the angle into the green, elevation, etc... I actually do quite a bit of this now. I just want to avoid penalizing those hitting a stock driver in an attempt to make it a challenge for those that don't. Great response, though, and something worth discussing further and maybe thrwoing some drawings/screenshots up to illustrate.
|
|
|
Post by rob4590 on Sept 6, 2018 16:08:03 GMT -5
I guess there will be a lot of cross hazards at 320-350 yards going forward then........
And by that I mean water, valleys / hollows with thick low trees that you'll struggle to get out of etc - stuff that basically says - you can hit the normal driver - but you try and overhit one, and you are going to get a SEVERE penalty.
The other way is to say to the player - go for it if you can hit that shot perfectly - make a water carry of say 300-310 (is that about right?) - most people will simply hit 3w just short (into a nice wide accomodating fairway) - but if they are brave / foolish enough - let them try and take it on with the deliberate overhit driver. If they DON'T overhit it (ie get P/P) then they will drop into the water.....
|
|
|
Post by mrvinegar206 on Sept 6, 2018 16:09:44 GMT -5
Interesting and important topic to talk about!
Because the fast boosted swing does roll out quite a long way, here are some ways I'm going to combat it.
-Doglegs. Not necessarily trying to cut the corner or risk/reward doglegs, but ones that have enough bend to try and make them roll through the far side. -Reverse-camber doglegs. Same premise as the normal dogleg. -Fairway bunkers/hazards where they seem appropriate more than a certain yardage. How many courses have risky carries over bunkers or water, or bunkers placed at 285 or 290 yards? Distances are out the window. You can get a P/F, F/P, or F/F and each go three different distances, I believe. -3 wood/forced layups off the tee. These aren't bad if they make sense course routing-wise, and the hole design-wise. Also, don't do it on a par 5. It looks bad lol -Fewer par 5s (I already do this though)
The "attack" will have to be more tee shot focused, I think. I know Griff makes really good green complexes, as do many of the great designers. They seem to still be a bit under attack even though they are designed well. This makes me think that not only do the green complexes need to stay top-notch, but tee shots, as well. The shallower greens and more front-to-back sloping greens don't defend against long drives. They might help them more actually since they can get more spin on it.
We have to keep angles and plotting your way around at the forefront. In essence, we have to keep brain > brawn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 16:13:28 GMT -5
I guess there will be a lot of cross hazards at 320-350 yards going forward then........ And by that I mean water, valleys / hollows with thick low trees that you'll struggle to get out of etc - stuff that basically says - you can hit the normal driver - but you try and overhit one, and you are going to get a SEVERE penalty. The other way is to say to the player - go for it if you can hit that shot perfectly - make a water carry of say 300-310 (is that about right?) - most people will simply hit 3w just short (into a nice wide accomodating fairway) - but if they are brave / foolish enough - let them try and take it on with the deliberate overhit driver. If they DON'T overhit it (ie get P/P) then they will drop into the water..... The only thing about that is when resorting to a steady stream of cross hazards, it becomes redundant. Meaning, when you have them in a few spots in a round it inspires a "that's a really cool hole, looks amazing" mentality. When you overdo it, it inspires a "Oh...this again?" or "I've seen this before" mindset. It's definitely something that can be thrown into a round in a few places, but making it creative enough to pull off for an entire round without being monotonous would be a trick. Good thought, Rob. Certainly a trick that can be added to the arsenal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 16:17:14 GMT -5
Interesting and important topic to talk about! Because the fast boosted swing does roll out quite a long way, here are some ways I'm going to combat it. -Doglegs. Not necessarily trying to cut the corner or risk/reward doglegs, but ones that have enough bend to try and make them roll through the far side. -Reverse-camber doglegs. Same premise as the normal dogleg. -Fairway bunkers/hazards where they seem appropriate more than a certain yardage. How many courses have risky carries over bunkers or water, or bunkers placed at 285 or 290 yards? Distances are out the window. You can get a P/F, F/P, or F/F and each go three different distances, I believe. -3 wood/forced layups off the tee. These aren't bad if they make sense course routing-wise, and the hole design-wise. -Fewer par 5s (I already do this though) The "attack" will have to be more tee shot focused, I think. I know Griff makes really good green complexes, as do many of the great designers. They seem to still be a bit under attack even though they are designed well. This makes me think that not only do the green complexes need to stay top-notch, but tee shots, as well. The shallower greens and more front-to-back sloping greens don't defend against long drives. They might help them more actually since they can get more spin on it. We have to keep angles and plotting your way around at the forefront. In essence, we have to keep brain > brawn. This is kinda where my head has gone as well. That being said, with you being a real life course design guy, are you finding yourself thinking about things that are counter intuitive to how you know it's supposed to be done? Example: 90 degree dogleg. That's kinda a no-no IRL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 16:23:26 GMT -5
Also, please understand, guys....if I say something "against" what you post, I'm not being obstinate. I'm more playing devil's advocate and trying to spark further conversation by exposing what could be considered "cons" of said approach.
I'm not here to poopoo on anybody's thoughts or ideas. We're just brainstorming, exploring, and maybe (hopefully) picking up some tricks from other designers.
|
|
|
Post by mrvinegar206 on Sept 6, 2018 16:24:43 GMT -5
Interesting and important topic to talk about! Because the fast boosted swing does roll out quite a long way, here are some ways I'm going to combat it. -Doglegs. Not necessarily trying to cut the corner or risk/reward doglegs, but ones that have enough bend to try and make them roll through the far side. -Reverse-camber doglegs. Same premise as the normal dogleg. -Fairway bunkers/hazards where they seem appropriate more than a certain yardage. How many courses have risky carries over bunkers or water, or bunkers placed at 285 or 290 yards? Distances are out the window. You can get a P/F, F/P, or F/F and each go three different distances, I believe. -3 wood/forced layups off the tee. These aren't bad if they make sense course routing-wise, and the hole design-wise. -Fewer par 5s (I already do this though) The "attack" will have to be more tee shot focused, I think. I know Griff makes really good green complexes, as do many of the great designers. They seem to still be a bit under attack even though they are designed well. This makes me think that not only do the green complexes need to stay top-notch, but tee shots, as well. The shallower greens and more front-to-back sloping greens don't defend against long drives. They might help them more actually since they can get more spin on it. We have to keep angles and plotting your way around at the forefront. In essence, we have to keep brain > brawn. This is kinda where my head has gone as well. That being said, with you being a real life course design guy, are you finding yourself thinking about things that are counter intuitive to how you know it's supposed to be done? Example: 90 degree dogleg. That's kinda a no-no IRL. Definitely don't want to do 90 degree doglegs! Not entirely. Just being a bit more creative for tee shots. IRL, you do put some thought into it, but a drive is one of the hardest shots, so you don't try to make anything too intricate IRL. However, this is a video game.
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Sept 6, 2018 16:32:00 GMT -5
Chances are, if it continues to be an issue in-game, I'll probably incorporate a little of all of these. Another option I haven't seen mentioned is creating a couple bottle holes, where the landing area continues to get more narrow the farther you go.
|
|