|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 28, 2020 18:42:45 GMT -5
As for the greens, I hate to design a course that gives the putters who don't excel elsewhere a huge advantage over players who can drive well, play straight irons, and recover from trouble exceptionally - that last one is the most undertested aspects on too many courses, IMO. If those who putt well have an advantage over those who don't, isn't it also true that those who drive it well and hit their irons well have an advantage over those who don't? Every player has to play every hole and the beauty of golf is that no one player is the same. If you only rewarded one type of player, then there would only be on type of player and most likely, one type of golf course. This is not me trying to change your mind but it is me trying to offer up a different way to look at the importance of greens and how they can set an ideal course apart from a dull course. Alister MacKenzie has famously said that the most ideal golf holes can be played with only a putter. He also famously won a golf design contest with a hole that offered five different lines of play, each one specific to different overall skill levels, abilities, or length. His books and other writings always talk about how important it is to offer every level of golfer options to compete. Variety should always be the goal and that encompasses every aspect of a course. How does me saying the phrase "not have a huge advantage" translate to you apparently having me "thinking greens are unimportant" ?? If anything I'm just saying I feel too many course over-emphasize it, possibly unintentionally - AND only in the context of this game. IRL, putting is my strongest game element, as it's the closest thing to feeling like I'm 'hands on the ball'. I agree wholeheartedly ... but I don't play many courses like that here it seems. Sloppy play is nowhere near as penalized as IRL, and while I may benefit score-wise, it doesn't please me as a player, strangely.
MY satisfaction with the course is UNRELATED to my ability to play it well, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 29, 2020 1:39:47 GMT -5
I wrote a long post, but left it as I think I was losing clarity. A few key points in summary:
- There aren't hard and fast rules but good design principles that good, quirky holes still adhere to. - You have misconceptions about links golf and are using it to justify poor design. I play a ton of links, including my home course. There aren't many blind hazards at all and every pot bunker on a decent links has a low side. N.B. just because you can't see the base of the bunker doesn't mean it's blind. - You are trying to protect par in a video game where accuracy is trivial. Please don’t. It's pointless and you will create awful, tricked-up courses in an attempt to do so. Even the hardest courses in game (Black Salt, Conservatory West, Susquehannock etc) see scores approaching -10.
What everyone is trying to get across to you is not 'don't break the rules', rather the importance of you understanding key design principles and why they are there so that you can incorporate that quirk intelligently. I don't think you're trying to understand them, but instead explaining why you like quirky holes. That's all fine, but worth being aware that if you have an 18 full of quirky holes as you currently visualise them (trees in fairway, forcing a slice off the tee etc), it'll be a complete mess.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 29, 2020 6:42:08 GMT -5
Case in point from my round this morning on our nine hole course. Can’t embed the link properly on mobile annoyingly. imgur.com/gallery/yUlHttX
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Jul 29, 2020 7:17:46 GMT -5
Case in point from my round this morning on our nine hole course. Can’t embed the link properly on mobile annoyingly. imgur.com/gallery/yUlHttXWow being from New York I cannot explain how jealous I am that you get to play a course like that
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jul 29, 2020 8:18:25 GMT -5
This whole thread feels like talking to Robert Trent Jones about classic courses.
Accuracy is not something you can effectively test off the tee in this game, and most of us have pretty much accepted that. Ben hit the nail on the head earlier: make the drive challenging insofar as it defends the correct angle. Dylan and I are currently working on a project with fairways that are 40,50, sometimes 60 yards wide because it's no more difficult for a TGC player to hit that fairway than it is to hit the infamous Escobar Runway.
I've played Susquehannock and hit every single fairway and still shot +3. The challenge is there without being overly penal off the tee. Having 25-yard-wide fairways is really "forcing" shots.
Your biggest example is 8 at Pebble. You claim it is two "forced shots". First, the fairway is a whopping 60 YARDS WIDE. If that "forces" a shot, then I give up. The desired angle is from the left side of the fairway, which is protected by camber (the fairway slopes hard toward the water. Then, from the ideal position up on the left, it's no longer a forced carry. Players have 30+ yards of fairway short of the green, and can play a running shot if they choose. Nothing is forced. Is it quirky and hard as hell? Yeah. Is it thoughtless target golf? No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 8:22:15 GMT -5
No, it's not been as prevelant in this thread, except for this quote : "If several people give reasonable advice about strategy and how a hole/course actually plays... you might be better served by swallowing your pride and taking the advice." How is this not saying "we're right, listen to us" (a pride/ego filled statement in itself) ? Since that was my quote, I'd like to clarify its meaning/origin, as it was not my intention to come off as pride/ego filled. I was actually agreeing with the post before mine. Even though I did use the word "you", I did not mean you directly PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA . I tried to offer clarification in the sentence immediately following the quoted line by saying, "I know that I have had comments made about the strategy of several holes on my courses over the years, and after the sting of the exposed flaw passed, I agreed with their assessments." I have frequently been guilty of gimmicky hole designs that served very little purpose than the initial "wow" of seeing the gimmick. Aristea Skies' hole 15 is a par 3 with tree, rocks and a bush in the center of a green, and Lulu Lagoon's hole 16 par 4 has a 200ft drop from the tee to fairway. Both of those holes offered very little value to most people after the first round due to their lack of options for play. I started working on those flaws, and feel the following two courses were much better because I swallowed my pride and took the advice from designers in this community. So, I was actually talking about my own bad designs, the flaws pointed out by the community, and the improvement of my own designs due to those recommendations. I can see how it could be taken as "we're right, listen to us", but in the way I was actually saying it, there was no "we" or "us". I am far from being among the elite designers in this community, and when I view my designs from an objective point of view, the criticisms from this community have been very valuable. Also, please do not take this response as a slight either, as I am just pointing out that there are subtle nuisances that are lost in text if read a certain way.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 29, 2020 14:02:08 GMT -5
Okay, I give in, everything you guys say is right, Im just a fool. Played Beau Pre Estates this morning, and it was near perfect for my tastes in terms of penalizing stray shots. Several punch-outs required, recovery wasn't as simple as just distance lost due to the rough. I could have used a couple more unique looks, but it didn't seem as repetitive as most. Also love the Olympics course with its tiny pin areas.
Showbiz analorgy : some folks preferred Taming of the Shrew with Taylor & Burton, I'd rather see a lively community theater version of Kiss Me Kate. Same story, one is waaay more fun, and leaves me humming a tune as I head home.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 29, 2020 14:24:05 GMT -5
from a Golf Academy article :
"Clampett used to sneak on Pebble as a teenager and estimates he’s played the course more than 100 times. He also called nearly a dozen AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Ams as an analyst for CBS Sports, so who better to explain how the pros will tackle some of the more difficult and feared shots at Pebble this week.
If you want to learn how to play Pebble Beach, here’s your chance. Today, it’s the tee shot on the famed par-4 eighth hole, which calls for a strategically placed, high-launching, low-spinning 220-yard 3-wood (see video, below). The closer you are to the end of the fairway, the more manageable the forced carry is over the deep, ocean chasm."
If 220 is about as far as the pro here says you can safely hit it from the tee, I believe it. That eliminates Driver, heck 3 wood for top players goes, what 250 easily ? I, on the other hand would likely not come close to the edge even with my biggest hit. And still have to play through the left rough all the way down for safety's sake ... glad I can play it 'right' in e-golf.
Stay well, see you all on the leaderboards.
Anyway, done discussing design philosophy in these forums, but happy to hear any specifics as relates to my courses.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jul 29, 2020 14:46:50 GMT -5
<abbr>T</abbr>he 'community' hasn't been specific about my designs, tbh.
I've not gotten feedback on my couple of course postings when I put them in "Completed Courses" - which doesn't surprise me givent 15-20 new courses popping up daily.
As I say, laladiesman helps me in that regard, and I got one comment from an XBox user who liked Fleming River. It's got 4 stars, on a couple of hundred plays. Whooopee ! Another of mine , Alamiss Village just got played in a society as well, 3.5 stars there (heck, I'd only give it 3 myself, likely, as it lacks continuity).
I think 'Long Lake' was my best so far, but it got rejected for TGCT without any hole-by-hole feedback to help me. Once again, I get it, there are dozens of submissions to work through for the official reviewers. But in the time it takes to read my posts & formulate a response, anyone here could take a lap around them and actually critique my work instead of my attitude, LOL. We could debate 'philosophy' of design ad infinitum, but if what I create is good, who really cares whether I 'thought about it' or just threw some holes down & crafted them intuitively ?
I DO regret that I am too erratic with Masters on the XB to truly playtest with them in mind. Although it;s an opportunity to see how the 'trouble' plays !
|
|
|
Post by kitbo on Aug 28, 2020 8:28:22 GMT -5
My problem is where to plant trees, everything else is ok
|
|
M. Rose
Caddy
Double your pleasure! Two new courses today.
Posts: 40
|
Post by M. Rose on Aug 28, 2020 22:21:30 GMT -5
Parkland is my favourite type... I suppose it is because it is what I grew up playing, but I'm also attracted to the greenness, the serenity, the beauty.
I suppose I enjoy creating within the simple framework as it forces me to focus on making the holes as interesting as possible. I think it is easy, especially when designing for video games, to use hazards as a crutch. I like to try putting in a couple of holes on every course I do which are waterless and bunkerless, and just use nothing but elevation and grass. Some of my favourite personal holes have come out of that challenge.
I don't have anything against the Bandon look, but I feel like 90% of the top rated courses I see are essentially someone's interpretation of it.
|
|
|
Post by slippymcdippy on Nov 30, 2021 19:59:29 GMT -5
... you great country club/park land course designers have to keep inspired. After my last 2 'rugged' courses, I thought I would try again at a more urban/suburban thing, but it is tough for me. Every hole just feels like I am borrowing someone else's work or painting by numbers. Luckily, the 'high' of my first 'approved' layout (Fleming River GC shameless plug) is still with me, but I fear the back nine will be a series of build & destroy cycles. Is it a format where it's better to think of it as a construction job than an art project, perhaps ? Anyway, kudos and hopefully I'll create a worthy entry in that style here soon. Some people have certain styles. That's not a bad thing. If the course is a bit of a challenge because it's not what you're used too, maybe step back for a second. I'm not saying that you give up all together, but if what's in your mind isn't working, sometimes starting fresh is a good idea. I've deleted courses with 18 playable holes. Have three that have been sitting there since before September that will never see the light of day. My rdc course was my third attempt and my cc course was my second. As far as borrowing ideas, do it. Its how design evolves. I've done it shamelessly. It happens all the time irl. For an example, look at the course guide for Old Macdonald. Every hole has a couple "inspired by" holes listed. Further, if you need a parkland inspiration, there plenty of good ones out there. Play a lot of them. I like to find places with open street map that dont have a course and build a course on it. My course Kohler Andrae is the only published one so far. It wasnt great but i learned some cool stuff that time.
|
|