|
Post by HoneyBadgerHacker on Jan 4, 2021 11:32:53 GMT -5
Howdy folks. Been trying to focus on more strategy with my current course and I’m about 80% done. My question is how many is too many? I mean how many holes should there be centered lined bunkers if you decide to do one or more? Would only having one, two, three or so make it seem like they are “out of theme” from the other holes? Are there any good examples on when and how to use them? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by abowidow5712 on Jan 4, 2021 13:08:30 GMT -5
Hey man, I wouldn't put more than two holes with center line bunkers and I would space those holes out. It's a bit of a quirky strategy so I wouldn't put too many holes on the course with it. Not a common thing. Just my opinion though. Curious to see what others say.
|
|
ChrizZcE
Amateur Golfer
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 154
TGCT Name: Christian Elsesser
Member is Online
|
Post by ChrizZcE on Jan 4, 2021 13:14:37 GMT -5
b101 is that your burner account? 😁 This is actually a really good question. IRL centerline bunkers arent as common as they usually are in this game as hitting the Fairway is hard enough. My take is centerline bunkers should be used sparingly if you want to go for realism. So probably 1-3 for an 18 hole course. My next WCoD course has two centerline bunkers fwiw. This falls into the designing for a video game vs. designing for realism category IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Jan 4, 2021 13:55:30 GMT -5
FWIW, The Excelsior Club has 3, only one of which is in play off the tee. What I've learned over time is that you don't really need them all that much.
Centerline bunkers force multiple choice discrete options (left/right/forward/back). Oftentimes, it's better to give a full spectrum of options (e.g. how much of this dogleg do you want to cut? How much do you want to challenge the bunker on the left side?), and there are other ways to force a multiple choice set of options.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 4, 2021 14:04:49 GMT -5
Ok, quite a lengthy answer, which will surprise nobody given that it's something I do a lot. 1) Kinda agree with ChrizZcE here and kinda with abowidow5712 for different reasons. Mainly in that it depends on the style of course you are imitating. On links courses (old and new school) you will see many more, so bear that in mind. On a parkland, basically zero. Sandbelt, a few. It's gotta fit the style of course, so try to do your research in advance to understand exactly where that type of course puts its hazards, typical fairway width and what type of hazards they use. 2) It has to serve a purpose and not just be to justify poor scaling (although they can help make reaaaally wide holes work well. Too many people put one in to justify an 80 yard wide fairway and make average angles work (if that's the case, do you need the 80 yard wide fairway, or can you shrink the hole and make the angles better?). 3) Following from the above, they HAVE to be strategic and placed for a reason. When you do use them, the name is a misnomer for me. Put them off-centre and have them guard the ideal side, which should be narrower (e.g. fairway width of 60 yards, have a 30-20 split with the bunker taking up the middle 10 yards and the ideal line be the 20 yard side). The more I've been designing, the more I hate holes which are lazily plopping a bunker down right in the middle and asking you to choose which side with no discernible advantage. If that's the case, it's not strategy and I might as well aim at the bunker and hope I pull/push it. Even in my central bunker heavy phase with Marlette - which is way too many btw - there is always a side you should be taking on which balances risk/reward. I think this is the step that many newer designers miss when using central hazards. 4) Totally agree that you shouldn't overuse them and a course can be highly strategic without using them. The better you get at strategy, the less you will need them. 5) However, what a bunker has that other hazards (camber, fairway runout, trees, uneven stances etc) is that it's very visual and clearly defines a 'no go' zone. Use them for that. --- Ultimately though, all of this has to be filtered through the lens of 'this is a video game where people regularly hit 330 yards dead straight'. Consequently, they need to be more prevalent than in real life because the lateral miss basically doesn't exist and when it does, heavy rough is a better hazard anyway... Additionally, designers such as Doak, Hanse, Coore/Crenshaw will regularly use them in their own courses, so it's not a case of tricking things up with no real-life equivalent. I'd go a little beyond the 1-3 rule, but it really does depend on the style of course. I know there are others with strong views on this, but dogmatic RCRs just don't translate that effectively in the game.
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jan 4, 2021 14:42:00 GMT -5
they use. 2) It has to serve a purpose and not just be to justify poor scaling (although they can help make reaaaally wide holes work well. Too many people put one in to justify an 80 yard wide fairway and make average angles work I can hear you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 14:44:50 GMT -5
Ultimately though, all of this has to be filtered through the lens of 'this is a video game where people regularly hit 330 yards dead straight'. Consequently, they need to be more prevalent than in real life because the lateral miss basically doesn't exist and when it does, heavy rough is a better hazard anyway... Additionally, designers such as Doak, Hanse, Coore/Crenshaw will regularly use them in their own courses, so it's not a case of tricking things up with no real-life equivalent. I'd go a little beyond the 1-3 rule, but it really does depend on the style of course. I know there are others with strong views on this, but dogmatic RCRs just don't translate that effectively in the game. Not sure if you refering to me Ben (strong views). I have no strong views on center-line bunkers, but I feel I need to respond to the post anyway - as you probably know I don't agree with all of it. If you don't want to regurarly hit dead straight, cramp the difficulty up to Legend - or find the difficulty that is best for you. Want to hit dead straight? No problem - use Beginner swing difficulty. Or do you hit dead straight all the time on legend difficulty? Sure - some players need perhaps even more difficult settings than legend to get a real simulation of real life golf - but at the Ultra Sim Experience, we have worse average stats compared to real life PGA Tour with Master swing difficulty. We have some of the best players on TGC Tours competing in our society (sloaner comes to mind), and it shows that this game is not as easy at the highest difficulty as you suggest (we are not even using the highest difficulty). It is starting to be a bit better now - and so far, this game proves to be the best to simulate real life professional golf in any video golf game ever. Not perfect - it won't ever be perfect - but it is getting better. As far as center-line bunkers goes - the reason for using the bunker is key to me. And from my point of view, the key reason is to stop the ball from rolling futher down the fairway (some links courses has some severe penal pot bunkers, and this has always been more luck than strategy in my book, so I am not a fan ot it). This works best on fairways that are either flat or downhill. You punish the player with loss in distance if the golfer hit the bunker. As a real life example - I will like to use the 7th at Club de Golf Alcanada on Mallorca. This is a long par 5 with a downhill drive. Trent Jones Jr. has put a center bunker in a wide fairway, and also a bunker short of the fairway to challenge the shorter hitters. After the center bunker, the fairway narrows, and you have forest on either side. The long hitter will have no problem carrying this bunker, but the drive is risky because of the narrowing of the fairway - find yourself in the forest and it is a lost ball. Usualy the prevailing wind on this course is from the sea, so you usualy have a headwind on the hole, making the bunker a real threat. If you want to hit down the hill past the bunker, you need to carry the bunker as a shot to the side will most likely roll out in the rough with the risk of going into the bushes. So on the tee, you are left with a decision to play short or to the side of the bunker, with a layup option, or go for a carry. Many good golfers hit an iron off the tee here and play the hole as a three shot par 5, because the risk of the narrow fairway is too great. But it is a risk and reward - carry the bunker with a driver or wood, and you find your ball rolling down the hill with the possibility to reach in two. You may argue all you like that players hit too straight in the video game, but I do not agree on the higher difficulties. Push that ball, and you are faced with a bogey or worse. Notice - a professional golfer will rather find himself in a bunker than heavy rough. This is also a key to greenside bunkers or fairway bunkers closer to a green on par 5's and longer par 4's. A bunker effectively stops a ball that is hit low with less carry and more roll-out to reach the desired spot (ie. green in regulation on a par 5 or long par 4). If your bunker is surrounded by fairway, or the rough cuts into the fairway is a matter of a decision if you want the golfer to have an option to the other side. For a green approach, the typical way is to leave the golfer an option to hit a low rolling shot to one side. Some architects are pretty clear that there should always be a path for a short carry, long roll golfer to get through the course with clever course management.
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jan 4, 2021 15:05:33 GMT -5
Ultimately though, all of this has to be filtered through the lens of 'this is a video game where people regularly hit 330 yards dead straight'. Consequently, they need to be more prevalent than in real life because the lateral miss basically doesn't exist and when it does, heavy rough is a better hazard anyway... Additionally, designers such as Doak, Hanse, Coore/Crenshaw will regularly use them in their own courses, so it's not a case of tricking things up with no real-life equivalent. I'd go a little beyond the 1-3 rule, but it really does depend on the style of course. I know there are others with strong views on this, but dogmatic RCRs just don't translate that effectively in the game. As far as center-line bunkers goes - the reason for using the bunker is key to me. And from my point of view, the key reason is to stop the ball from rolling futher down the fairway (some links courses has some severe penal pot bunkers, and this has always been more luck than strategy in my book, so I am not a fan ot it). This works best on fairways that are either flat or downhill. You punish the player with loss in distance if the golfer hit the bunker. Notice - a professional golfer will rather find himself in a bunker than heavy rough. This is also a key to greenside bunkers or fairway bunkers closer to a green on par 5's and longer par 4's. A bunker effectively stops a ball that is hit low with less carry and more roll-out to reach the desired spot (ie. green in regulation on a par 5 or long par 4). If your bunker is surrounded by fairway, or the rough cuts into the fairway is a matter of a decision if you want the golfer to have an option to the other side. For a green approach, the typical way is to leave the golfer an option to hit a low rolling shot to one side. Some architects are pretty clear that there should always be a path for a short carry, long roll golfer to get through the course with clever course management. This is exactly why I like to use what Ben refers to as the "heavy rough nipple": a mound of heavy rough instead of a centerline bunker. This accomplishes both the goal of indicating preferred line or catching golf balls but also makes a much more difficult recovery shot (awkward stand, difficult lie) than a bunker. Don't think there's anything wrong with having a lot of centerline hazards (bunkers, mounds, etc.) on your course. For reference: Tetherow (built in 2008) has several dozen centerline mounds. Yeaman's Hall (built in 1925) has 18 centerline hazards. Do not feel like there has ever been a restriction on how many of these you can/should build, but as Ben said, make them interesting, meaningful, and not dead center on every hole. Don't want to take this thread off topic but you're objectively wrong about pot bunkers. They are penal for a reason: don't hit your ball in them. Fairly simple.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 4, 2021 15:12:19 GMT -5
Nah, not you specifically, but appreciate your stance.
Thing is, with the settings you are suggesting, that is very much designing for the 1%. It’s great that it makes RCRs play well, but for the vast majority playing the game it just won’t come into effect and the course will have no teeth. For fictional courses, which I know you don’t make, you have to use a different set of rules to make them play well in game, based on real life principles.
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Jan 4, 2021 15:29:16 GMT -5
Every single golf hole needs to have at least 2 centerline bunkers.
In all seriousness though, I like them when they are done well. I haven't ventured into designing them too much. I put a fair amount on my Dream Team course. If there was a course that had centerline bunkers on every hole, I would not complain as long as they are done well and add strategy.
Two mistakes I see with them are: 1: When they are put in the dead center of the fairway, perfectly splitting it in two where one side is no more advantageous or risky than the other. 2: When they are too big. This happens a lot.
I view centerline bunkers more as visual hazards than actual hazards. They should make the golfer think more about which side of the bunker they are going to hit to vs avoiding finding the bunker itself.
|
|
|
Post by HoneyBadgerHacker on Jan 4, 2021 15:38:39 GMT -5
Great responses everyone! Appreciate all of the comments and will definitely use everyone’s input to a certain degree. Thanks again!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 16:04:32 GMT -5
Nah, not you specifically, but appreciate your stance. Thing is, with the settings you are suggesting, that is very much designing for the 1%. It’s great that it makes RCRs play well, but for the vast majority playing the game it just won’t come into effect and the course will have no teeth. For fictional courses, which I know you don’t make, you have to use a different set of rules to make them play well in game, based on real life principles. I have read a bit on this forum, and from what I see - I have the impression that the majority do not like "tricked up" courses. Some do, but that is perhaps again the 1%. There was a game - TW PGA Tour 08 - that had a skill progression system. Your starting hacker had 150 yard carry with the driver, and 205 yard max distance, so you had 50+ yard roll out. It is very fun to play courses on such a setting. There is no way to simulate amateur golf in such a way in this game - so the aspect of designing for golfers with slower swing speed, less carry and more roll out is not there unless the small target of amateur golfers playing on simulator. Btw. I have actually created a fictional course in the APCD for Links 2003. That file is lost though, and it was not great at all. I started working on RCR's in the APCD after that (and never got to finish anyone, though I got pretty close on a french course - Golf du Cognac - that is a short course, very good for amateurs, not so for professionals).
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 4, 2021 16:27:46 GMT -5
Nah, not you specifically, but appreciate your stance. Thing is, with the settings you are suggesting, that is very much designing for the 1%. It’s great that it makes RCRs play well, but for the vast majority playing the game it just won’t come into effect and the course will have no teeth. For fictional courses, which I know you don’t make, you have to use a different set of rules to make them play well in game, based on real life principles. I have read a bit on this forum, and from what I see - I have the impression that the majority do not like "tricked up" courses. Some do, but that is perhaps again the 1%. Absolutely, but central hazards aren't tricked up - they are clear and obvious. There's a big difference between strategic golf and tricked up golf (crowned pins, tucked pins, sticking players between clubs on every par three, pinching driver at 295 endlessly etc etc). Most of the very top designers are good at the former and avoid the latter (although you may find yourself in bad situations if you make a poor decision/execution). A lot of what players will often moan about is them failing to grasp any sort of course strategy - i.e. not taking on bunkers off the tee and facing a trickier approach shot. Now, even understanding that, does that mean that the player who can't thoughtlessly hit middle of the fairway every time won't hate central bunkers? Of course not, but then, there's precedent for that as well. I'd say the below is a must-read for every designer: thefriedegg.com/the-players-vs-centerline-bunkers-the-12th-at-tpc-boston/
|
|
|
Post by abowidow5712 on Jan 4, 2021 17:03:10 GMT -5
It all comes down to purpose and strategy just like every other bunker. Don't put a bunker somewhere just because, there needs to be a reason why. A lot of great information here and I agree that article is a must read b101, thanks for sharing. Golfers find a way to complain about everything. I think Hanse was on to something, but the players do run the Tour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2021 17:36:56 GMT -5
I have read a bit on this forum, and from what I see - I have the impression that the majority do not like "tricked up" courses. Some do, but that is perhaps again the 1%. Absolutely, but central hazards aren't tricked up - they are clear and obvious. There's a big difference between strategic golf and tricked up golf (crowned pins, tucked pins, sticking players between clubs on every par three, pinching driver at 295 endlessly etc etc). Most of the very top designers are good at the former and avoid the latter (although you may find yourself in bad situations if you make a poor decision/execution). A lot of what players will often moan about is them failing to grasp any sort of course strategy - i.e. not taking on bunkers off the tee and facing a trickier approach shot. Now, even understanding that, does that mean that the player who can't thoughtlessly hit middle of the fairway every time won't hate central bunkers? Of course not, but then, there's precedent for that as well. I'd say the below is a must-read for every designer: thefriedegg.com/the-players-vs-centerline-bunkers-the-12th-at-tpc-boston/Never said central bunkers (with or without fairway around them) needs to trick a course up - but they can. If you on every hole putt down central bunkers to narrow the fairway at the driving distance - regardless of hole length etc, and make them deep and penal so it is a certain stroke loss - it is just as bad as huge fall fronts on every green etc. Well - not bad if you want target golf all along - but for strategy - no no. Another question to ask, is what other hazards do the tee shot offer? Do I really need to narrow the fairway on this hole? Or could I leave the golfer with the option to hit a less optimal angel also with a driver? The 12th on Boston is a good example, and I really like the way Hanse reworked that hole. Though, you can question if the strategy can be solved with using rough instead of bunkers - narrowing the fairway gradualy the longer you go down the fairway - or you can use bunkers without surrounding it with fairway. If I remember correct - I think those bunkers where quite penal?
|
|