My ideal course is more oriented towards wanting to see variety in the terrain and directions of the routing rather than X number of long to short ratio, par 3s, 4s, 5s. Yes, I like there to be variety in distances that various holes cover. I don't like to see several holes all in the 330-380 range, or all par 3s within two or three club range.
What my ideal course requires is variety of elevation changes when attempting shots both off the tee and to greens or LZs, from low to higher and vice versa. And, it is even more fun if the shot gives you some decision as to how to play the LZ, off a slope or two distinct sides of a FW for a choice on the next shot as to how to play it into a green site. I like greens to be sited at various elevations as well, higher or lower than your approach. Then, I also have an ideal where the routing takes multiple directions for dealing with winds.
So, to me ideal golf courses are more about how the routing makes its journey across the land. Use of that land in terms of using elevations and directions pretty much takes care of the distance variety and width formulas, because almost any routing over interesting land will default to a variety of non-template or non-formula hole designs, IMHO.
Now, when you are dealing with unremarkable flat land, then it becomes more formulaic, and template hole designs seem to me to be more of a possibility. That is why I think Raynor is so successful. Many of his holes can be duplicated on unremarkable terrain, with lots of dozer work. The templates have a predetermined "best golfing shot" routine to them, that are tried and true classic shots. But, even Raynor templates seem more fun on varied terain and elevation sites.
I also go with Ben's notion of rejecting the term "test" of golf. A round of golf is a game of golf, and tests seem to kill the fun of a round in a social setting, where I play 90% of my golf. Tests are when we play in tournaments and competitively for score. Tests bring in pencil and card mentality, and take away from the pleasure aspect for me. Even a classic match is more gamesmanship, not so much a test, except a test of managing your game against your opponent, with the course as secondary and only the venue where the game takes place. In a match, played on the "test of golf" type of course, it seems to come down to both players must hit "the" shot called for at the time, more so than strategising alternate ways to play several choices to match or beat your opponent on a given hole, if it were a template sort of "test of golf" hole.