COVID Courses

[Still Linksing]

Just wanted to say the courses coming through recently have all been excellent! I'm looking forward to playing them all properly in my tournaments.

The only common thing I am finding that I am not really keen on is how close the pin placements tend to be to the edge of the green with difficult pins. I like to use difficult pins last round of my tournaments. I feel many are too close to the edge of the green and there are too many that are placed at the edges hole after hole. Difficult imo doesn't mean it should automatically be placed edge of the green. Hole after hole, it gets to be too much.

Don't want to sound like I'm whining as it's not my intent. I wanted to mention the above as atm the pins are the only issue I have with some of the latest courses. They are truly a blast in every other way.

It feels kinda like the old days. With so many different people creating courses, you just don't know what type of designer style you will see. Makes it quite fun downloading and opening a new course for the first time.

Well done to everyone producing courses.

[Adelade]

The only common thing I am finding that I am not really keen on is how close the pin placements tend to be to the edge of the green with difficult pins. I like to use difficult pins last round of my tournaments. I feel many are too close to the edge of the green and there are too many that are placed at the edges hole after hole. Difficult imo doesn't mean it should automatically be placed edge of the green. Hole after hole, it gets to be too much.

I think this is a case where you cant fully please everyone. I for one like tricky pins close to green edges, especially on easy courses, and I know Im not the only one. Besides there are a lot of people scoring in the 50s in this old game and they need challenges! The matter was discussed on the old forums, there was even a poll of how many feet from fringes the minimum limit should be for pins, and while I dont remember all details too clearly, I distinctly remember people voting lower than I had expected. I feel strongly that I saw most votes being at 7-8 feet.

I think PGA recommends 10 feet with the caveat of applying common sense case-by-case, but I know my local course in real life sure had some pins a lot closer than 10. My first course made had the limit of 6, with exceptions on smallest greens down to 5, it was intended since the course had small greens, but I agree it might be a bit low and I've been trying to aim for 7 - with 8 on bigger greens since that. When its tricky to find enough fair pin spots on severely sloping greens I still think its hard to fully stick to that though. Your opinion is a fully valid one and I personally will keep it in mind and perhaps try to increase my limit where I can, but since there are people with different preferences I feel like its better to provide options for both preferences and not fully stay away from pins near edges. You can always select custom pins and alternate between difficult and medium pins hole to hole, I used to do something like that before I started fully handpicking pins. I know you were not bringing it up as a big problem, sorry. I just welcome the discussion, personally aim to please as many as possible, and wanted to say how I see it.

[Still Linksing]

Besides there are a lot of people scoring in the 50s in this old game and they need challenges!

If they are regularly shooting 50's they should be using a harder skill level not have designers trying to make courses unnaturally tough.

I think PGA recommends 10 feet with the caveat of applying common sense case-by-case

The above seems reasonable. Some pins visually look ridiculously close to edges in Links, they look unnaturally close. The problem for me becomes as a player, I will select difficult pin position 1 for every hole. Often the designer will put the close edge pin in this difficult 1 position on every hole. I think you need to mix things up and sure, you can have 18 holes with a pin near the edge just don't put every edge pin at the difficulty 1 setting. People downloading a course will not know the optimum difficult pin number to select for every hole and will start with setting all the pins to 1. Give them some variation when they do this.

When its tricky to find enough fair pin spots on severely sloping greens I still think its hard to fully stick to that though.

If the locations aren't there to plant them, don't plant them for the sake of using every position available. I don't mind seeing a course with only 4 pins planted. Makes me immediately think the designer gave their positions some thought.

[Adelade]

If they are regularly shooting 50's they should be using a harder skill level not have designers trying to make courses unnaturally tough.

I agree, but not all people like doing that so they keep shooting 50.

I think you need to mix things up and sure, you can have 18 holes with a pin near the edge just don't put every edge pin at the difficulty 1 setting.

I mean sure, but some of us like having multiple pins per hole near edges so they can pick freely between such pins on different parts of the green. The reasonable outcome is that difficult slots mostly get taken up by edge pins then. I dont see why it would be more reasonable to eliminate choices for those people, just to satisfy people who want pins closer to the middle of greens without having to pick normal/easy pins. Seems like itd be much better for both parties to be happy if you settled for picking normal pins instead for example. The point is there are options open for both ways, is it reasonable to ask for more than that in order to make some people happy but others less happy? Having just 4 pins per green for example has no hope whatsoever of satisfying different ranges of taste.

People downloading a course will not know the optimum difficult pin number to select for every hole and will start with setting all the pins to 1. Give them some variation when they do this.

I guess I could be wrong but I doubt any kind of majority do it that way when playing a course for the first time. That seems like its a sure recipe for getting poor variety in pins for a ton of courses. Other people do it differently, I would assume the best method for wanting nice variety to be pressing randomize. I dont see any way of guaranteeing everyone will encounter the pins they would enjoy the most on a first round unless you attach some kind of pin sheet or if the users personally handpick pins beforehand. I tend to write about my pin philosophy in readme's for my courses, I guess I can add to it here that selecting all 18 pins being one same number is not recommended for my courses unless wanting low variety of difficulty, at least not unless otherwise specified (for example, pin numbers corresponding to real life tournament positions per tournament day, as is the case with one course I recently started setting pins for). It makes most sense to me for difficult pins to be the most difficult ones. There are lots of ways of getting variety while still keeping most pins difficult.

If the locations aren't there to plant them, don't plant them for the sake of using every position available. I don't mind seeing a course with only 4 pins planted. Makes me immediately think the designer gave their positions some thought.

Why not? If it pleases me for a pin to be there according to how I personally think acceptable pins are like, then why shouldnt I be able to plant one there? No one is forced to pick it, there are others available that suit other tastes as well with my method. If you were trying to not have any single pin on a course that any single person might find less than completely optimal, Im sorry to say but there probably wouldnt be a single pin on that course, tastes are that different. Its like... Why force everyone to pick vanilla flavour ice cream just because some people dont like strawberry flavour, when you can offer ice cream of 4 different flavours and let everyone pick whichever of them they want? Sure, some may not want to bother looking at labels before randomly or arbitrarily choosing, but thats not a good reason to eliminate choices in order to make some people happy while leaving others entirely without options to be happy. At least thats my view.

[Still Linksing]

I agree, but not all people like doing that so they keep shooting 50.

If you agree why change your design for this select group of individuals as you stated earlier? Let them keep shooting 50's and create a course as it should be for ALL Links players.

I mean sure, but some of us like having multiple pins per hole near edges so they can pick freely between such pins on different parts of the green. The reasonable outcome is that difficult slots mostly get taken up by edge pins then. I dont see why it would be more reasonable to eliminate choices for those people, just to satisfy people who want pins closer to the middle of greens without having to pick normal/easy pins.

If a designer plants 18 pins per green, that's 324 different pin placements per a single course. I have no intention on trialing each of the 324 pins per course to determine the ones I would like.

Some common sense needs to be used and decisions need to be made by the designer. If I play a course, set difficult pins and then find I didn't like 10 or more pin positions during that final round, I'm not going to waste a ton of time to find 10 alternatives I will like. In this situation I will then try moderate pins for the final round but if some of those pin placements are silly as well, I likely will just stop playing the course.

I guess I could be wrong but I doubt any kind of majority do it that way when playing a course for the first time. That seems like its a sure recipe for getting poor variety in pins for a ton of courses. Other people do it differently, I would assume the best method for wanting nice variety to be pressing randomize.

I can assure you from the days of many posts and many players, people select a pin type. They then expect an easy pin to be easy, a moderate pin...etc
Those who play seasons will mostly do what I do as it's logical. You start with the easiest pins day 1 and build difficulty from there.

[Adelade]

If you agree why change your design for this select group of individuals as you stated earlier? Let them keep shooting 50's and create a course as it should be for ALL Links players.

How could I create a course for ALL Links players by ignoring a certain group of people? Thats just contradictive. As I said, I think I can try to make courses that contain options that would satisfy both you and those people. All you need to do is select those settings, if you dont want to bother thats fine but the option is there, I dont think anything more could be asked of designers unless you claim your own opinion/taste is objectively superior to other people's, which honestly it kinda sounds like you are I guess. Im curious to hear your reasoning for why I should ignore those people because of a difference in preference about how to set up the game with (skill level) difficulty, while at the same time cater to you in spite of a difference in preference about how to set up the game with (pin) difficulty?

If a designer plants 18 pins per green, that's 324 different pin placements per a single course. I have no intention on trialing each of the 324 pins per course to determine the ones I would like.

Trialing 324 pins? I never said anything about you needing to do anything like that. Im saying it seems to me like your issue could be solved by going into the custom pin screen and just set all pins to a certain number or randomize, and then swap like 6-9 of them so that you have the variety of pin difficulties you're looking for. Difficult ones on odd numbered holes, Medium ones on even numbered holes for example. Takes like 20 seconds?

I can assure you from the days of many posts and many players, people select a pin type. They then expect an easy pin to be easy, a moderate pin...etc
Those who play seasons will mostly do what I do as it's logical. You start with the easiest pins day 1 and build difficulty from there.

I didnt speak about selecting a pin *type*, I was replying to where you said that people "will start with setting all the pins to 1". With my method, easy pins are easy, moderate ones moderate, difficult ones are difficult. Its as one would expect, if you pick difficult pins you should expect to have a tough round. If you want breather pins on occasional holes use the custom pins feature, like I said - you can easily set it up like that in seconds. The alternative would be to have some "difficult" pins on some holes play easy/moderate, that would mislead other people who use the custom pins selector based on difficulty instead. The only way for people to predict it correctly for a first round is for a designer to stick to one method and be consistent about it so that people learn how certain courses function in terms of pins. I dont see anything more intuitive/consistent than having all difficult pins play difficult etc. That or a Readme detailing what pins are like, but I doubt many people read those.

[Still Linksing]

Im curious to hear your reasoning for why I should ignore those people because of a difference in preference about how to set up the game with (skill level) difficulty, while at the same time cater to you in spite of a difference in preference about how to set up the game with (pin) difficulty?

I'm suggesting not to create a course for certain people. Create a course and make it as good as it can be focusing only on the design and not what people may shoot on it. The 50 shooters clearly have had an influence on what you do. If a course ends up easy or hard is irrelevant.
"I better place some hard pins for these 50 shooters" shouldn't come into the equation.

I didnt speak about selecting a pin *type*, I was replying to where you said that people "will start with setting all the pins to 1". With my method, easy pins are easy, moderate ones moderate, difficult ones are difficult. Its as one would expect, if you pick difficult pins you should expect to have a tough round. If you want breather pins on occasional holes use the custom pins feature, like I said - you can easily set it up like that in seconds. The alternative would be to have some "difficult" pins on some holes play easy/moderate, that would mislead other people who use the custom pins selector based on difficulty instead. The only way for people to predict it correctly for a first round is for a designer to stick to one method and be consistent about it so that people learn how certain courses function in terms of pins. I dont see anything more intuitive/consistent than having all difficult pins play difficult etc. That or a Readme detailing what pins are like, but I doubt many people read those.

Sorry, let me clear this up. I was meaning setting the first difficult pin. This is what I meant when stating difficult pin 1. I was meaning the first difficult pin. In the custom list it may be 12, 13 or whatever.

Trialing 324 pins? I never said anything about you needing to do anything like that. Im saying it seems to me like your issue could be solved by going into the custom pin screen and just set all pins to a certain number or randomize, and then swap like 6-9 of them so that you have the variety of pin difficulties you're looking for. Difficult ones on odd numbered holes, Medium ones on even numbered holes for example. Takes like 20 seconds?

If you randomize, you get any type of pin easy through difficult. I don't want difficult pins first round for example. I also only want to find the reasonable pin placements for a course and use them permanently. Randomize means you will get them all.

I set all pins to the first difficult pin for the final round. I then note any holes that I didn't like the placement. I find a new difficult pin placement for that hole after my round and make a note for the course to use the new pin number for that particular hole next time.

There are courses that have so many bad pins that need to be changed and such few good options it isn't worth the time to change them. If I come across a course with masses of pins close to edges and poor other options, it's a delete course.
For example, I may find hole 1 I don't like the pin. So I try the second difficult setting. That setting is still close to an edge. I now try the 3rd difficult setting, still close to an edge. Finally on the 4th attempt I find a good pin.
If this course has say 30 pins I want changed from my first attempt at playing this course to find good pins, it's a delete job if that's the routine I will need to go through 30 times.

[Adelade]

I'm suggesting not to create a course for certain people. Create a course and make it as good as it can be focusing only on the design and not what people may shoot on it. The 50 shooters clearly have had an influence on what you do. If a course ends up easy or hard is irrelevant.
"I better place some hard pins for these 50 shooters" shouldn't come into the equation.

Nah, its incorrect to say they've had an influence on what I do, you mistake a mere bonus argument with my main argument. I myself am the first example of someone who likes using those kind of pins.

I strongly disagree with it being irrelevant how easy or hard a course is, agree to disagree I guess.

I thought I'd already made clear that Im not creating courses for certain people and instead courses that contain options for everyone to be satisfied. The pins you're looking for are all there available to you, if its too much work to find them because of insisting on sticking with your usual method and refusing to mix up normal and difficult in one same round for example that is a shame. I would genuinely much prefer if I was able to get things to be more suited for your method too but I see no way of doing that without either taking away options from people with similar preference as me - or else making things less intuitive, which instead would just mean other people would face similar issues as yours when setting things up.

I know some courses mix up order of easy/normal/difficult pins per hole (for example, some holes having 0-5 normal, 6-11 difficult, 12-17 easy, or simply all random and scrambled), I've always thought that to seem kind of weird and less intuitive to use but I guess it could be something for me to consider. Either way, the way you describe your method of selecting the first difficult pin rather than a certain pin number, it wouldnt solve anything for you anyway.

I have a better understanding now of how you set things up (I doubt many people do it that way which seemed to be your earlier argument that I responded to), I get that it might be less convenient to copy the same setup season after season with randomize, but I still dont see why you cant just pick pins similar to the methods I described. Yes randomize would on average select 6 holes with a certain difficulty, thats why I also said manually changing 6-9 pins to ones of the difficulty you seek afterwards. That or as I said, first simply selecting all pins to a certain number (or your usual pins) and then change 6-9 ones for increased variety. But ok, its always fair enough to use or discard courses for whatever reason one wants.

P.S. I (somewhat loosely) rank pins in terms of difficulty, e.g. pin 0 being the easiest of all, pin 17 hardest of all. Or in the case of one course Im currently planting pins on, reversed order for a particular reason) so you may have more success on my courses by not changing an undesired pin to the next-in-line pin, they're likely to be very similar in difficulty.

[Stephen Sullivan]

I am sure everyone is aware that for the Easy, Normal and Hard pins to work correctly in Links, there need to be 6 of each level set as (in APCD) 1-6 Easy, 7-12 Normal and 13-18 Hard.

The planting of these seems to be a real issue. I myself have planted pins on inappropriate slopes. I now use a grid (provided by Danny D) to set up these pins, using the method described in Lez's video.

I'm sure people's opinion on the difficulty of pins can be very different. I know that I have discarded courses for tournament use at LSPN, because they don't have enough pins to use at the speeds I want to use.

[pmgolf]

The current convention of ranking pins in Links is to select 6 easy pins, 6 moderate pins and 6 difficult pins, for which the APCD provides. When selecting pin positions, I look for 6 easy pin positions in areas all over the green, repeating it for moderate and then difficult pins, following Lez Marwicks instructions. There is no way in H that I'm going to make the most difficult pin the first number selected. The first difficult pin and the last difficult pin are equal - they are difficult! And the same is true with easy and moderate.

And don't for a minute think that all designers place equal value on the placement of pins. Some do a terrific job with it, and some don't give it much thought. And here is an example of the one of the worst pin placement jobs - Le Golf National. He must have spent hundreds of hours recreating such a beautiful course, and afterward spent mere minutes making it all but unplayable. If you don't closely examine the pin positions you choose, you may wind up playing a course like this one. There's no way you're going to get 4 enjoyable rounds out of it.

LeGolfNational H4 small.jpg (57.46 KiB) Viewed 6925 times

I have spent the last six years setting up tournaments. I never use "All 1 pins" or anything close to it like "All easy pins" - or even "Random". I go into "Practice" mode at the course I'm going to use, with all pins displayed (checkbox), and select the best 4 pin positions (front-back-left-right and middle green) with a mix of difficulty on each green, just like someone would do at a real-life tournament. In my mind, if you do a half-A job setting up your rounds, then you're just cheating yourself!

I love golf, and I have been playing it avidly for almost 50 years. I don't understand these video-gamers who play Links and shoot in the 50's. I make no allowances for them. I feel like they are missing out on the fun of a truly enjoyable sport, but if they want to do that - it's their life!

Pete