Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 3:37:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 3:49:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mitchblue on Jul 3, 2015 12:58:24 GMT -5
Great articles. From watching it anyways I'd prefer harder greens and maybe more in the middle but soft greens that are fast works nicely at times. I hate soft and slow. But I've always love the British style, hard and fast with massive bunkers. Add in some heavy wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Jul 3, 2015 17:51:03 GMT -5
A good read for any designer I'd say!
|
|
|
|
Post by boynsy on Jul 3, 2015 18:51:09 GMT -5
One of the major problems, in my opinion, on this topic is the lack of course knowledge. Firm courses have many subtleties to them, most of which are not obvious to the golfer first, or even tenth time round. This is why an experienced caddy is worth so many shots to a golfer new to a course (particularly a links course), who can tell the player exactly where to aim and how the ball will react. How is a TGC player, who will probably only play a course once or twice before moving on, supposed to know that landing a 3 iron 45 yards short and 15 yards left will funnel nicely towards the back right of the green, where this week's pin is? It is entirely possible for the designer to make it so, but without putting the rounds in, our players will not know where the ideal landing points are.
If you've ever seen the preparation for a big tournament, you'll have noticed that caddies are out on the greens, rolling balls across the surface to see how they react. We have nothing like this level of information available, especially without green grids/ on the fairways where they are unavailable. Even if players think really hard about where to aim (I guarantee you that not many do), a huge number still complain when missing right rolls the ball 30 feet away. This attitude of giving up on courses that don't instantly gratify you with a 62 is why most of our courses are medium firmness at most.
Even on a firm course, however, shorter approaches stop quicker than long ones. This is why I'm totally okay with 75-125 yard approaches to relatively tucked pins, because (especially in low winds), I know that I can land it just short of the hole, kick it on and have it stop shortly afterwards, maybe even coming back slightly. There's just no justice in expecting a 4 iron to be able to carry 185 before stopping within 6 feet.
I think that designers can learn a lot from the "false bunker" commonly seen on British links courses. This is a bunker located 40-60 yards or so short of the green, looking like it requires a bold carry over it but instead just being a mental hazard to catch underhit shots. It adds an element of risk to the shot, while still allowing a bump and run style of play, and added to that they bring a nice visual element to a hole by breaking up endless fairways. How far from the green an approach SHOULD be coming in from determines where this bunker is located, and can force a reachable par 5 to become a three shotter.
Basically, if you're hitting in from a long way out, make sure it isn't a heroic fly to a postage stamp green; make the margin for error roughly proportional to the distance of the shot, but feel free to make some harder or easier (just as much value to an easy hole as there is to a hard hole) to add variety, and maybe make the ideal target landing area slightly too obvious for those players that don't want to have to think.
Other than that, I think it's up to the players to decide what they want to play. If they want a "point and click" game where shots can stick next to a pin, designers will cater to that to get plays and tournament recognition and firmer courses will be rare. If they decide that they will put time into understanding subtleties of courses (which require more time and effort to design), then we will have a harder, but better game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 17:03:45 GMT -5
I do think firm and fast is the best way to create a harder challenge. However, it is indeed tough to create a rewarding test that doesn't feel 'unplayable'. Tips to creating firm course are indeed 'false bunkers' and the like. Also, bigger fairways and greens are a must. No need creating a 4-iron approach shot to a small green for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mitchblue on Jul 4, 2015 18:49:12 GMT -5
I love big greens. Have lots of undulations but a big green is awesome. 70-80 foot putts. What's better than that? Can you create pot like bunkers yet in the Greg Norman Course Designer?
|
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Jul 4, 2015 18:54:20 GMT -5
Can you create pot like bunkers yet in the Greg Norman Course Designer? Yes, absolutely... if you know the trick(s) I'd say. I've already seen some fabulous pot bunker creations on some courses. Muirfield (by Yeltzman) comes into my mind immediately, as I've played it quiet recently. |
|
|
|
Post by Mitchblue on Jul 4, 2015 19:12:40 GMT -5
Can you create pot like bunkers yet in the Greg Norman Course Designer? Yes, absolutely... if you know the trick(s) I'd say. I've already seen some fabulous pot bunker creations on some courses. Muirfield (by Yeltzman) comes into my mind immediately, as I've played it quiet recently. Thanks. I'll try that course. |
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Jul 4, 2015 19:23:10 GMT -5
You definitely won't regret that round.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Jul 4, 2015 20:32:24 GMT -5
This game is realistic enough that design concepts carry over extremely well. That's why real course recreations usually play so well as they are designed by professionals.
The above is basic course design - need to balance the features. What designers should keep in mind is that courses made in game can be a bit tighter and pin placements a bit thougher than what would be put IRL. Pin placements are extremely important but sadly often overlooked imo.
Another think I often see is gigantic greens overall and a mismatch of size vs. length of approach.
|
|
