24 replies to this topic

[IanD]

How does a Designer cope with creating a fictional design....?

I only make this post, to emphasize the issues some Designers have, when dealing with the numerous ways to play their courses.

 

When playing some Courses under certain conditions, there can be an element of 'tricked up' or maybe a better worded 'fantasy' tag, attached to certain designs. By this term, I mean several instances where the course isn't as it perhaps should be. In appearance, it has the impression of being graphically pleasing and wonderful views, with pleasing textures and sounds. However, playing the holes itself, changes the opinion of those being challenged.

 

Only a few examples, such as the pin location adjacent to a slope that requires mountaineering equipment to climb. Bunkers deliberately placed at the 275yd mark, with the fairways angled at such a slope, you have to drop a club. These are but a few... obvious design flaws. Not to say they can't be utilised, but only a badly hit shot should perhaps be penalised.

 

However, the game itself also offers issues that i wonder how the Designers deal with....

 

Hard fairways.... that ability to change conditions in the game, that isn't easily dealt with in the Course Forge... - For Designers, what is your thinking when being challenged creating Par 5s ? Do conditions form any part of the process of design?

 

Currently, for me anyway, the game appears a little unbalanced in the how the course conditions control courses. Courses played under conditions of Hard fairways (firm, yes I know the correct wording lol), with Soft greens, are some of the widest in terms of this illustration. For instance, a Par 5, with a nice drive from the tee, can see the bounce and roll make approx 300-350yds. The 2nd shot makes the green reachable, and a few bounces on the fairway can safely see your ball reach the green under immense speed. Only to see the stimp instantly slow the ball, perhaps too quickly. The reverse too.... a shot at the green with spin, with a pin located too close to the front of a green, see's the shot spin back. However, the stimp doesn't 'grab' the ball as instantly as the longer roll and almost throws the ball backwards onto the firm fairway, where an exaggeration, places your ball back 100yds...

 

What I'd like to see, is a little variation in the conditions. Or, more control of the shot type. How...? Who knows... this can be as suggestive as anything...

 

What I would like, for design purposes, is to see the Designers being able to create areas around greens of saturation. For example, not necessarily following the conditions set by those creating the game. Too many times, playing a Par 3 or a short'ish shot to a green, do I find a pin location by the green edge. My shot hits the fairway, within 10yds of the pin and takes the firm condition to the extreme, where, another few feet would have seen the shot land and roll but 15-20ft. So... how is that realistic ?

 

Having some form of saturation for conditions would allow those edge of green pin locations, some balance. Agreed, the Designer would need the ability to control this, but I do feel the game needs to better recognise these extreme conditions. Not necessarily remove or change them, but a dampening is needed....

 

Other thoughts?

[clubcaptain]

How does a Designer cope with creating a fictional design....?

I only make this post, to emphasize the issues some Designers have, when dealing with the numerous ways to play their courses.

 

When playing some Courses under certain conditions, there can be an element of 'tricked up' or maybe a better worded 'fantasy' tag, attached to certain designs. By this term, I mean several instances where the course isn't as it perhaps should be. In appearance, it has the impression of being graphically pleasing and wonderful views, with pleasing textures and sounds. However, playing the holes itself, changes the opinion of those being challenged.

 

Only a few examples, such as the pin location adjacent to a slope that requires mountaineering equipment to climb. Bunkers deliberately placed at the 275yd mark, with the fairways angled at such a slope, you have to drop a club. These are but a few... obvious design flaws. Not to say they can't be utilised, but only a badly hit shot should perhaps be penalised.

 

However, the game itself also offers issues that i wonder how the Designers deal with....

 

Hard fairways.... that ability to change conditions in the game, that isn't easily dealt with in the Course Forge... - For Designers, what is your thinking when being challenged creating Par 5s ? Do conditions form any part of the process of design?

 

Currently, for me anyway, the game appears a little unbalanced in the how the course conditions control courses. Courses played under conditions of Hard fairways (firm, yes I know the correct wording lol), with Soft greens, are some of the widest in terms of this illustration. For instance, a Par 5, with a nice drive from the tee, can see the bounce and roll make approx 300-350yds. The 2nd shot makes the green reachable, and a few bounces on the fairway can safely see your ball reach the green under immense speed. Only to see the stimp instantly slow the ball, perhaps too quickly. The reverse too.... a shot at the green with spin, with a pin located too close to the front of a green, see's the shot spin back. However, the stimp doesn't 'grab' the ball as instantly as the longer roll and almost throws the ball backwards onto the firm fairway, where an exaggeration, places your ball back 100yds...

 

What I'd like to see, is a little variation in the conditions. Or, more control of the shot type. How...? Who knows... this can be as suggestive as anything...

 

What I would like, for design purposes, is to see the Designers being able to create areas around greens of saturation. For example, not necessarily following the conditions set by those creating the game. Too many times, playing a Par 3 or a short'ish shot to a green, do I find a pin location by the green edge. My shot hits the fairway, within 10yds of the pin and takes the firm condition to the extreme, where, another few feet would have seen the shot land and roll but 15-20ft. So... how is that realistic ?

 

Having some form of saturation for conditions would allow those edge of green pin locations, some balance. Agreed, the Designer would need the ability to control this, but I do feel the game needs to better recognise these extreme conditions. Not necessarily remove or change them, but a dampening is needed....

 

Other thoughts?

I've always tried to take account of some variation in conditions but I've never known anyone able to design around ALL types of conditions. This also varies from game to game. In JNPG I deliberately design around a normal 6 o'clock shot and also a fully overhit shot. I  make sure that the course is playable from every tee. From the front to the back tee drives could vary considerably. You can't put bunkers in to counter every shot from every tee. Not enough sand available !

 

I also test under 4 different wind conditions. Now, taking into account the variables in ground conditions, wind and tee placements I doubt whether it's possible to design around them all.

 

I agree with you about bunkers being placed at the same yardage markers on a hole but in my experience it's no longer 275 yards it's 300 yards plus. The reason is that it's pretty common now for players to use overswing. I've also thought for a long time that JNPG should allow different players to have different maximum yardage depending on their ability and method of play. Right now, in a foursome, you can regularly throw a blanket over all 4 balls after driving from the tee.

 

Take this example into real life on British links courses. In July one year balls could be going 350 yards after excessive run because fairways can be like concrete in a long dry spell. In another year on the same course you might only get 250 yards because everything is so squelchy.

One way to achieve a better design job to take all variables into account is to allow the designer to set the ground condition in CF for all terrain types. I was involved in this some time ago with another game and the designer could allocate min and max shot length for each ground condition. For example, for fairway fringe you might have mon and max set at 98% or indeed set them at 100%. Light rough could be set at 85%/90% and so on. Using this feature the designer always knew what was going to happen in each scenario. In JNPG the designer hands over the course and anyone can do what they like with it as far as conditions are concerned. I'm OK with that BTW

[Kablammo11]

I design my courses to be viable under average, normal, medium conditions. That's all, nothing more! Players who set them to hard are on their own - it strikes me as utterly pointless to design a course that indulges all conditions equally well.

 

I like to place bunkers waiting for errand drives on long holes. If I design strong defences in the landing area of a driver, I however must provide all those players who decide to lay up with a decent chance of reaching the green in regulation.

 

As far as I'm concerned, no player has the God-given right to hit every drive 300y or to place his approaches stone dead on each and every pin location. That, I suppose, is the entitled birdie-mentality of computer golfers. As a designer I don't make any provisions for players to potentially break par on every hole (I always add at least one drivable par 4 to allow for that, though) - but I strive very hard to give them a fair shot at making par. With a few cruelties thrown into the mix and a few possible snookers to avoid, asking them to work for it. 

 

I design the course - but every player is responsible for his own course management. 

[axe360]

As far as a ball holding the green, I make mind so they will hold on Stimp 14/hard/hard, that way it works for any condition.

You can make big slopes around a pin that will hold on stimp10 but as soon as someone goes stimp 14 the ball won't hold. I like to make them so it holds in the fastest conditions, then I know it will hold on lower speeds.

 

I try to  follow the rule that you make an area around the pin of about a 5 to 6ft circumference, pretty much flat. Seems to work.

 

Disclaimer: Of course this is how I designed for TW's 08 and earlier, I am currently learning the CF and am on my 2nd hole.

So IF I Ever finish the course, I will then see if my philosophy holds  up.

[IanD]

I wonder if this image helps in some way, describe the extremes, that can be faced on courses under difficult pins and adverse conditions. For example, speaking of a Firm Fairway, and a Soft Green... the image below can show how other factors should affect or interact the actual physics within the game. Tough to do, but perhaps necessary ?

 

For example, the minimum distance above, is an area of discussion. Why should the area have such varying physical characteristics, without the game or designer having some interaction on how this should react?

Take the Top View... having the ability to create an Physical Overlay within the Course Forge, over the mesh itself, can offer this control. Being able to reduce the physical characteristics set by the players creating the game, can therefore equalise the ball reactions to the game extremes. It won't really affect those playing under Normal / Normal conditions, but would increase interaction upon those playing Firm fairways and Soft Greens. Simply allowing the area to be defined, as in the Top Image and have the reduction in some slider fashion, can see the area 'normalised' by whatever percentage the designer chooses.

[clubcaptain]

I wonder if this image helps in some way, describe the extremes, that can be faced on courses under difficult pins and adverse conditions. For example, speaking of a Firm Fairway, and a Soft Green... the image below can show how other factors should affect or interact the actual physics within the game. Tough to do, but perhaps necessary ?

 

For example, the minimum distance above, is an area of discussion. Why should the area have such varying physical characteristics, without the game or designer having some interaction on how this should react?

Take the Top View... having the ability to create an Physical Overlay within the Course Forge, over the mesh itself, can offer this control. Being able to reduce the physical characteristics set by the players creating the game, can therefore equalise the ball reactions to the game extremes. It won't really affect those playing under Normal / Normal conditions, but would increase interaction upon those playing Firm fairways and Soft Greens. Simply allowing the area to be defined, as in the Top Image and have the reduction in some slider fashion, can see the area 'normalised' by whatever percentage the designer chooses.

Sorry Ian but I'm not "getting" some of this.

[Wirenut48]

I think what he is referring to is have set areas as watered down to soften firm conditions.

[rjc3095]

As far as a ball holding the green, I make mind so they will hold on Stimp 14/hard/hard, that way it works for any condition.
You can make big slopes around a pin that will hold on stimp10 but as soon as someone goes stimp 14 the ball won't hold. I like to make them so it holds in the fastest conditions, then I know it will hold on lower speeds.

I try to follow the rule that you make an area around the pin of about a 5 to 6ft circumference, pretty much flat. Seems to work.

Disclaimer: Of course this is how I designed for TW's 08 and earlier, I am currently learning the CF and am on my 2nd hole.
So IF I Ever finish the course, I will then see if my philosophy holds up.

Ohh Larry your designing a course? I can't wait for it cause I always loved your TW08 designs and always appreciated your advice and knowledge when I was designing a few there

[axe360]

Ohh Larry your designing a course? I can't wait for it cause I always loved your TW designs and always appreciated your advice and knowledge when I was designing a few there

 

Thanks so much rjc, I hope to go all the way...Your very welcome.

[clubcaptain]

Personally I don't consider some of the 'design flaws' as actual flaws.  You could argue that placing water around pretty much the entirety of a green and placing the flag a few feet from the waters edge (Sunday pin on the 17th at Sawgrass) or have a building obscure the view of a drive onto a very thin piece of fairway and penalising anyone missing it by placing the pin directly over a steep 6ft bunker at 170+ yards away from a very narrow green with a road and OB directly behind (the road hole at St Andrews) are design flaws, when actually they are the things that make the holes world famous.  Why should every hole be designed to smash a driver as far as you can with no penalty?  Why should every pin be positioned so that you can go straight at it?  It's not a design flaw to make the player think on the tee before getting the big dog out and smashing it 350 yards...

 

To be honest, I design what I like and if others don't like it then they don't have to play it.

 

Honestly, some of the comments on here regarding course designs over the past few months make me really question whether I will ever release a course again to the public. 

Ignore them Gary. You do the right thing and do what pleases you. keep on doing that.

[M Rose]

As someone who designs a lot of fictional, but realistic courses, my personal goal is to create something that looks like it could exist in real life, and could also be played that way.

 

I also believe in the strategic school of design, rather than penal. I believe in the use of angles and in the risk/reward philosophy. Generally I am not interested in making something as difficult as possible. I think it is a waste of time, as any good computer player worth their salt will find a way to shoot 15 under par; that's the nature of golf games. I would rather have something that the novice player will enjoy just as much, as well as the simulator player. I try not to be too gimmicky if I can.

 

At the same time, I try very hardest to have every hole have some kind of interesting look or feature to it. Do I find it aesthetically pleasing from the tee, from behind the green, from the fairway.  Is there variety in the routing? Do I have more than three par-four holes in a row, and if I do, are they all different enough from each other that you don't mind playing more than three par-four holes in a row? Do I have short holes and long holes and in between holes? Do I have ones with trouble on the right and ones with trouble on the left?

 

I actually try to account for the physics too, if I can....  I enjoy shots and holes where the ball does things after it hits the ground. I like helping slopes and backstops and I try to build these in in places.

 

I won't place a pin on greater than 2 degrees if I can help it.... there are times where I've had to do a 3 degree slope simply because I had too many pin placements in one place already, but I always had it set as difficult. If it a fictional course I'll flatten it a bit, but I'm hesitant to mess with it on real courses if I have very good elevation data.

 

More than anything else, I ask myself "is this a FUN golf course to play?". Golf is supposed to be fun.

 

I also told myself a long time ago to ignore advice that didn't pertain to technical or playability issues. When you get bombarded with feedback while one of your courses is being tested, then you have to filter some things out. There's simply no way I can change everything to the point that every person is satisfied; it isn't possible and if you try, the one person who ends up satisfied the least is yourself. Somebody will always tell you to change a texture, someone will always tell you they don't like your tree choice, someone will tell you that your bunker sand is too light, and then if you darken it someone will tell you the next day that it is too dark, or that they liked it better the day before.

 

I guess the short version is this - design courses for yourself first, and to your own satisfaction. I like to think that if you know what you are doing, there will be enough people who appreciate it for it to be worth doing.

[Crow357]

Yeah.  Design the course you like to play.  If someone doesn't like it, well, they're wrong. 

[IanD]

Sorry Ian but I'm not "getting" some of this.

Forgive me for sometimes not making things too clear. I have a tendency to know in my head what I'm explaining, but not detail it well..

 

The example image below isn't a perfect example, but aims to highlight the areas of concern.

The fairway in the distance is the approach to this green. If the conditions were Firm Fairways and Soft Greens, you may see the areas around the green fringe become an additional thought process when making the shot to the green.

 

If your approach shot hits the areas surrounding the green, the ball will not react at all as if it would landing upon the green. Obviously, it isn't the Green, so this isn't unexpected. However, the area around the fringe is Fairway and this can cause unrealistic results. The huge bounce of a Firm Fairway, when literally, a few feet difference would see your shot begin a stopping sequence, would illustrate this better. A miniscule snap miss will often result in several yards variation upon landing, and I've noted many a shot of my own taking a further turn for the worst, by condition extremes.

 

What I'm suggesting, is allowing the Designer to have improvements within the CF, to cater for times where this may become a problem. Granted, he may choose not to utilise the change. However, being able to dampen the condition effects within a given shape (as shown in the Top Cam of my previous image) can lessen effect areas where it causes a problem.

 

This addition, isn't to change anything majorly. It is only to bring the area of effect, the dampening circle so to speak, back to the Normal/Normal condition by use of perhaps, a sliding scale or percentage. IE Reduce effect of Course Conditions to 50%. This would then make the areas within the dampening circle designed, play closer to 1) The Designer requirement and 2) Realistic condition.

 

The whole suggestion is because there are only inches/feet, deciding how the ball reacts. It isn't a case of the slope sometimes, it's a case of how hard the slope impacts upon the ball that hits it.

[DoGgs]

As someone who designs a lot of fictional, but realistic courses, my personal goal is to create something that looks like it could exist in real life, and could also be played that way.

 

I also believe in the strategic school of design, rather than penal. I believe in the use of angles and in the risk/reward philosophy. Generally I am not interested in making something as difficult as possible. I think it is a waste of time, as any good computer player worth their salt will find a way to shoot 15 under par; that's the nature of golf games. I would rather have something that the novice player will enjoy just as much, as well as the simulator player. I try not to be too gimmicky if I can.

 

At the same time, I try very hardest to have every hole have some kind of interesting look or feature to it. Do I find it aesthetically pleasing from the tee, from behind the green, from the fairway.  Is there variety in the routing? Do I have more than three par-four holes in a row, and if I do, are they all different enough from each other that you don't mind playing more than three par-four holes in a row? Do I have short holes and long holes and in between holes? Do I have ones with trouble on the right and ones with trouble on the left?

 

I actually try to account for the physics too, if I can....  I enjoy shots and holes where the ball does things after it hits the ground. I like helping slopes and backstops and I try to build these in in places.

 

I won't place a pin on greater than 2 degrees if I can help it.... there are times where I've had to do a 3 degree slope simply because I had too many pin placements in one place already, but I always had it set as difficult. If it a fictional course I'll flatten it a bit, but I'm hesitant to mess with it on real courses if I have very good elevation data.

 

More than anything else, I ask myself "is this a FUN golf course to play?". Golf is supposed to be fun.

 

I also told myself a long time ago to ignore advice that didn't pertain to technical or playability issues. When you get bombarded with feedback while one of your courses is being tested, then you have to filter some things out. There's simply no way I can change everything to the point that every person is satisfied; it isn't possible and if you try, the one person who ends up satisfied the least is yourself. Somebody will always tell you to change a texture, someone will always tell you they don't like your tree choice, someone will tell you that your bunker sand is too light, and then if you darken it someone will tell you the next day that it is too dark, or that they liked it better the day before.

 

I guess the short version is this - design courses for yourself first, and to your own satisfaction. I like to think that if you know what you are doing, there will be enough people who appreciate it for it to be worth doing.

This and only this in video golf games...nothing else matters.  I like a mixture of holes, some that you can blast it down the middle without much fear or thought, some that make you stop and assess the landing area.  You don't want 14 holes where you have to think about every shot, likewise you don't want 14 holes where you smash it off the tee without much thought.  You do however want a combination of the two.  Breather holes come with their own pressures, these are holes that in tournament play you know you can and maybe should be picking up shots on, thus putting pressure on yourself to do just that.  I'm quite easily pleased when it comes to design here, most courses we have are totally fine for me, my only gripe with design would be fairways that lead a player into a bunker, like a vaccum effect, a FAIRway is called that for a reason..Avoid this and there are no negative critiques from me, just degrees of fun.

[clubcaptain]

Forgive me for sometimes not making things too clear. I have a tendency to know in my head what I'm explaining, but not detail it well..

 

The example image below isn't a perfect example, but aims to highlight the areas of concern.

The fairway in the distance is the approach to this green. If the conditions were Firm Fairways and Soft Greens, you may see the areas around the green fringe become an additional thought process when making the shot to the green.

 

If your approach shot hits the areas surrounding the green, the ball will not react at all as if it would landing upon the green. Obviously, it isn't the Green, so this isn't unexpected. However, the area around the fringe is Fairway and this can cause unrealistic results. The huge bounce of a Firm Fairway, when literally, a few feet difference would see your shot begin a stopping sequence, would illustrate this better. A miniscule snap miss will often result in several yards variation upon landing, and I've noted many a shot of my own taking a further turn for the worst, by condition extremes.

 

What I'm suggesting, is allowing the Designer to have improvements within the CF, to cater for times where this may become a problem. Granted, he may choose not to utilise the change. However, being able to dampen the condition effects within a given shape (as shown in the Top Cam of my previous image) can lessen effect areas where it causes a problem.

 

This addition, isn't to change anything majorly. It is only to bring the area of effect, the dampening circle so to speak, back to the Normal/Normal condition by use of perhaps, a sliding scale or percentage. IE Reduce effect of Course Conditions to 50%. This would then make the areas within the dampening circle designed, play closer to 1) The Designer requirement and 2) Realistic condition.

 

The whole suggestion is because there are only inches/feet, deciding how the ball reacts. It isn't a case of the slope sometimes, it's a case of how hard the slope impacts upon the ball that hits it.

Thanks Ian.Understood and appreciated.

[JoeF]

Forgive me for sometimes not making things too clear. I have a tendency to know in my head what I'm explaining, but not detail it well..

 

The example image below isn't a perfect example, but aims to highlight the areas of concern.

The fairway in the distance is the approach to this green. If the conditions were Firm Fairways and Soft Greens, you may see the areas around the green fringe become an additional thought process when making the shot to the green.

 

If your approach shot hits the areas surrounding the green, the ball will not react at all as if it would landing upon the green. Obviously, it isn't the Green, so this isn't unexpected. However, the area around the fringe is Fairway and this can cause unrealistic results. The huge bounce of a Firm Fairway, when literally, a few feet difference would see your shot begin a stopping sequence, would illustrate this better. A miniscule snap miss will often result in several yards variation upon landing, and I've noted many a shot of my own taking a further turn for the worst, by condition extremes.

 

What I'm suggesting, is allowing the Designer to have improvements within the CF, to cater for times where this may become a problem. Granted, he may choose not to utilise the change. However, being able to dampen the condition effects within a given shape (as shown in the Top Cam of my previous image) can lessen effect areas where it causes a problem.

 

This addition, isn't to change anything majorly. It is only to bring the area of effect, the dampening circle so to speak, back to the Normal/Normal condition by use of perhaps, a sliding scale or percentage. IE Reduce effect of Course Conditions to 50%. This would then make the areas within the dampening circle designed, play closer to 1) The Designer requirement and 2) Realistic condition.

 

The whole suggestion is because there are only inches/feet, deciding how the ball reacts. It isn't a case of the slope sometimes, it's a case of how hard the slope impacts upon the ball that hits it.

 

I understand your thinking on this issue but the other side of the coin is that, as the player, you are aware of the conditions and know that you must allow for the extra bounce/run if landing on the fairway in front of the green.  You then play the shot accordingly.  If you land on the fairway by the green due to a shot error then you pay the penalty for your mistake.  That is golf, isn't it?  

[hhatch]

As someone who designs a lot of fictional, but realistic courses, my personal goal is to create something that looks like it could exist in real life, and could also be played that way.

 

I also believe in the strategic school of design, rather than penal. I believe in the use of angles and in the risk/reward philosophy. Generally I am not interested in making something as difficult as possible. I think it is a waste of time, as any good computer player worth their salt will find a way to shoot 15 under par; that's the nature of golf games. I would rather have something that the novice player will enjoy just as much, as well as the simulator player. I try not to be too gimmicky if I can.

 

At the same time, I try very hardest to have every hole have some kind of interesting look or feature to it. Do I find it aesthetically pleasing from the tee, from behind the green, from the fairway.  Is there variety in the routing? Do I have more than three par-four holes in a row, and if I do, are they all different enough from each other that you don't mind playing more than three par-four holes in a row? Do I have short holes and long holes and in between holes? Do I have ones with trouble on the right and ones with trouble on the left?

 

I actually try to account for the physics too, if I can....  I enjoy shots and holes where the ball does things after it hits the ground. I like helping slopes and backstops and I try to build these in in places.

 

I won't place a pin on greater than 2 degrees if I can help it.... there are times where I've had to do a 3 degree slope simply because I had too many pin placements in one place already, but I always had it set as difficult. If it a fictional course I'll flatten it a bit, but I'm hesitant to mess with it on real courses if I have very good elevation data.

 

More than anything else, I ask myself "is this a FUN golf course to play?". Golf is supposed to be fun.

 

I also told myself a long time ago to ignore advice that didn't pertain to technical or playability issues. When you get bombarded with feedback while one of your courses is being tested, then you have to filter some things out. There's simply no way I can change everything to the point that every person is satisfied; it isn't possible and if you try, the one person who ends up satisfied the least is yourself. Somebody will always tell you to change a texture, someone will always tell you they don't like your tree choice, someone will tell you that your bunker sand is too light, and then if you darken it someone will tell you the next day that it is too dark, or that they liked it better the day before.

 

I guess the short version is this - design courses for yourself first, and to your own satisfaction. I like to think that if you know what you are doing, there will be enough people who appreciate it for it to be worth doing.

As someone who has played a lot of rounds in this game and others and has done some design work I think you are spot on with your comments. I struggle a bit with angles and particularly the risk reward aspect. I don't like balls rolling into a bunker when I split the fairway, but I am fine with missing a shot because I took a risk. I'm working on my first CF course. We'll see what happens.

[Taragor]

I understand your thinking on this issue but the other side of the coin is that, as the player, you are aware of the conditions and know that you must allow for the extra bounce/run if landing on the fairway in front of the green.  You then play the shot accordingly.  If you land on the fairway by the green due to a shot error then you pay the penalty for your mistake.  That is golf, isn't it?  

 

I agree that as a player you should take into consideration the conditions prior to the shot. But!!!

 

We have no way to actually control the ball in game except for the minimal effect we get by varying the speed of the club. If the pin is set at 5 feet from the edge of the green and you are at 140y from the pin, taking any shot to reach the green to avoid having the huge impact that hitting the fairway would incur will set your ball on average to 15-20 feet from the pin since we cannot put any kind of added spin on shots.

 

Of course those 15-20 feet are not as drastic as what happens if you hit 10 feet early and hit the fairway instead

[IanD]

I understand your thinking on this issue but the other side of the coin is that, as the player, you are aware of the conditions and know that you must allow for the extra bounce/run if landing on the fairway in front of the green.  You then play the shot accordingly.  If you land on the fairway by the green due to a shot error then you pay the penalty for your mistake.  That is golf, isn't it?  

 

As Taragor states.. it isn't always something you can plan for.... or feel justified when missing the snap. You take the penalty of the missed snap ie direction..... should you also endure the reasoning of an impact penalty, when the pin is on the edge of the green?

 

Again, this is but a suggestion... adding the ability to dampen IMPACT, allows the designer to ensure his creation takes into account other factors, such as possible water or OB areas that can see your shot PING into oblivion.

 

It doesn't simply have to be used on areas around Greens either... imagine being able to control central parts of fairways, where possible water may actually lay on the fairway. Not all parts of a fairway should react the same...

[Mailman]

What I'd like to see, is a little variation in the conditions.

Other thoughts?

 

(1)  Here you go but it was never commented upon.  http://www.perfectpa...dness-settings/  IMO the present setting of 'Hard' FW should only be used on the appropriate course and yet there is a case for more latitude for tournament settings than currently exist. 

 

(2)  Correct me if I am wrong but tounament setups just have to go with easy/normal/hard pin settings (I think) but going back to Links you could select individual pins - way better IMO.