|
Post by turkmcgill on Feb 15, 2022 6:06:53 GMT -5
I just released a beta of my third course, casper_muni_beta, and one of the reviewers complained that the final hole is "unfun" and "unfair". I'm not discounting ANY feedback, but he based his comments on going for the green in two, and the hole wasn't really designed for that. Curious if any of you have thoughts on this... The 18th is a relatively short par 5 with a slightly elevated tee shot: Unless you have a hard headwind the green is EASILY reachable in two. However... this is a bit of a tease. The greens are rock hard and the 18th green is very narrow. Unless your 2nd shot hits the perfect spot on the hill in front of the green (while missing the two waste bunkers), it will be impossible to hold the green. You can go long, but an errant third shot could send your ball down the slope into those waiting waste bunkers. So players might be *tempted* to reach the green in two, but the smart play is to lay up in the wide fairway, as close to the pin as you can get, and then hit a wedge to the green. It's a fairly easy birdie if played right, as the green is pretty flat. I sort of liked this design, but then again "laying up" isn't really fun, it's just... strategic. So what do you think? Should I make the green more accessible in two? (I could still punish players for missing.) Or do you like the design as it is?
|
|
|
Post by shotstone on Feb 15, 2022 8:19:48 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is laying up on a reachable par 5 unless theres risk of their ball going OB or into water...
I would consider redesigning it so that it provides a more interesting second shot to give a great shot a solid look at eagle, and a middling shot a look at birdie. No point in protecting par on a gettable distance par 5 to finish (imho)
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Feb 15, 2022 8:29:23 GMT -5
This isn't strategic though - this is penal. Strategic gives you options and risk/reward, penal is 'hit the perfect shot or else'. Now that's not to say it's not thought out, but I'd expect the majority of players to dislike essentially being forced to lay up or hack out on a short par five. Personally, I think you have one too many 'don't go for it' elements in there: shallow green, hard green, run off behind, drop off in front, pots in front etc. There's a lot going on that's basically saying 'you aren't going for this', which will make people feel it's forced rather than a choice that they are opting for. Additionally, the split fairway short of the apron means that, if they are laying up, they have to lay WAY back - there's no real choices to be made with that layup... The aim of strategic design is to give a player choices and let them make up their mind based on the relative merits of each option. Here, you're forcing their hand.
P.S. doesn't help that many players are conditioned to go for it, just because it's in range. Which would actually be the smart play most of the time anyway - way easier to splash/chip for a birdie than hit a full wedge anyway.
|
|
|
Post by shotstone on Feb 15, 2022 8:39:31 GMT -5
This isn't strategic though - this is penal. Strategic gives you options and risk/reward, penal is 'hit the perfect shot or else'. Now that's not to say it's not thought out, but I'd expect the majority of players to dislike essentially being forced to lay up or hack out on a short par five. Personally, I think you have one too many 'don't go for it' elements in there: shallow green, hard green, run off behind, drop off in front, pots in front etc. There's a lot going on that's basically saying 'you aren't going for this', which will make people feel it's forced rather than a choice that they are opting for. Additionally, the split fairway short of the apron means that, if they are laying up, they have to lay WAY back - there's no real choices to be made with that layup... The aim of strategic design is to give a player choices and let them make up their mind based on the relative merits of each option. Here, you're forcing their hand. P.S. doesn't help that many players are conditioned to go for it, just because it's in range. Which would actually be the smart play most of the time anyway - way easier to splash/chip for a birdie than hit a full wedge anyway. Always more articulate than the rest of us! Saying much of what I was thinking, but failed with in my post!
|
|
|
Post by turkmcgill on Feb 15, 2022 9:51:22 GMT -5
You both make great points. I agree with what you are saying and I'll come up with something else. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Feb 15, 2022 12:17:40 GMT -5
I don't have any issue with the green size, nor do I think the green complex is unfair. Still, I don't like the hole design. The hole feels like it's all about the 2nd shot. The tee shot is, very much, target practice. I am just trying to find fairway somewhere. Anywhere. Neither the layup area nor the green influence my tee shot in any way. Then when I get to the second shot, I have two options: lay up to about 110 yards out, or go for the green. There's nothing in between. The layup shot is about as uninteresting as this game can get. I've got PW to an enormous fairway, and I don't care, at all, where in the fairway I end up. I do not understand why the area between the ditch and the green isn't fairway. That would be a 3rd option on the 2nd shot - to leave an awkward, uphill pitch. I think the green needs to be angled to give a reason to favor one side of the fairway over the other if you're going to go for the green. And then the layup area can be angled the opposite way by using some diagonal or pinch hazard so that the player needs to plan his route to the green. Lastly, the ditch should be moved back toward the green into the space currently occupied by heavy rough. That would give an explanation why that area isn't mowed down to fairway. Here's what I see now from the back tee. I can't see half the fairway which is fine, but I don't know enough about the hole, so strategy off the tee is lost. This is the layout of the hole, as it stands now. I hit my tee shot down the right side, avoiding all the bunkers. This is the best possible landing area. I've got 186 to clear the ditch which would leave me a pitch of under 50 yards. Why is this not an option for me? Here are some ideas on how this hole can be made better. First, I moved the back tee away from the tree. Now you're not taking aim directly over the 17th green. I angled the green, rotating it about 60 degrees counter-clockwise. Now, the ideal approach is from the left side and in order to get there, I have to navigate the minefield of bunkers. Next, I moved the ditch backwards towards the green, bringing it into play for long second shots and aggressive lay-ups to the apron of the green or the narrow neck of fairway that is no longer completely cut. I also added a bunker on the left side of the layup area. If players want to hit a full lob wedge from an ideal angle, this comes into play. Players have the option of bailing out to the right, but the third shot plays over the ditch and greenside bunker. Players now have 3 options from the tee, A, B and C. They need to get to C in order to have a good angle to reach in 2. If they want to have the best line to the layup area, they need to play to the right side (B). There are three options on the 2nd shot. Players can go for the green, layup to the apron, of lay up short of the ditch. That area gets progressively narrow as you go further up.
|
|
|
Post by turkmcgill on Feb 15, 2022 13:27:09 GMT -5
Wow, Erixon! Thank you for the incredibly insightful and thorough feedback. It's much appreciated! I see that I definitely need to make some changes to this hole (and probably some of the other holes, too).
|
|