FIGHTING NEEDS TO BE REBUILT!!
NHL needs a new fighting engine!! The fighting has not been good for a long time. I even stopped purchasing NHL games because of this. The gameplay is always good but when it comes to fighting it's ...
Forum Discussion
@KidShowtime1867 wrote:
@TTZ_Dipsy wrote:Fighting is more than just settling some score - small guys standing up to the plate are inspirational, a goliath with calcified knuckles threatening to drop the gloves should intimidate everyone, and that split second running through your head knowing you'll need to face their top guy if uou hit theirs should stop uou in your tracks.
You're not wrong, but this kind of stuff (inspirational small guys, calcified enforcers, etc) just doesn't translate to videogames. I'm not inspired when my small teammate "stands up" to an enforcer on the other side.. I'm annoyed because now I have an a.i. to deal with.
EA has tried to add something akin to being 'worried' about facing their tough guy after a big hit by forcing us into fights. That hasn't gone over well.
Oof, you said it. I don't get in many fights being a smaller player who doesn't hit much, but the mandatory fight after a big hit is rage inducing for my more physical teammates. And I get it. It feels fairly random when its going to happen which robs the player of the agency to make a decision on a hit, and it also results in having to sit out for an extended period of time when really you could have done nothing wrong.
I really think they need to add a very good chance (say 75%) of the player initiating the fight receiving an extra 2 for instigating. Give the guy starting a fight something to think about. Sure this would likely reduce fights to very infrequently, but would also reduce the inherent unfairness of having to sit 5 just for laying a body check.
You should never be forced to fight after a clean hit - bugs me to no end seeing that happen in the NHL. Definitely feels random in the videogame though; not fun at all.
Instigators would be a nice addition.
The sort of code/unwritten rule I mentioned sadly just doesn't exist anymore. I still want fights, for whatever the reason they started, to actually "mean" something.
I want the bench to at least pretend to care, more jeers, more yelling, for it to be an event.
EA_AljoCommunity Manager
You're only forced to fight if you injure someone. I'd rather not have it myself, but it's not exactly unrealistic to have your teammate defend your honor when that happens.
I'm sure there is some sort of actual calculation behind them but as a player on the outside looking in, injuries feel completely random. Not only that but some injuries can even heal themselves before the fighting penalty ia finished which totally defeats the point of "oh no he's hurt and now you gotta pay".
I would prefer if someone had the chance of stepping up and initiating that fight themselves instead it just choosing whoever automatically. A longer window after the hit to challenge the hitter to the fight could help what I suggested become more of a feature.
I'd like to suggest xfactors like Truculence be looked into (especially after the team buffed it), as they can completely twist how the supposed calculations are made, allowing for much dirtier hits to be dished out without fear of as many penalties.
- EA_Aljo
@TTZ_Dipsy wrote:
I'm sure there is some sort of actual calculation behind them but as a player on the outside looking in, injuries feel completely random. Not only that but some injuries can even heal themselves before the fighting penalty ia finished which totally defeats the point of "oh no he's hurt and now you gotta pay".
I would prefer if someone had the chance of stepping up and initiating that fight themselves instead it just choosing whoever automatically. A longer window after the hit to challenge the hitter to the fight could help what I suggested become more of a feature.
I'd like to suggest xfactors like Truculence be looked into (especially after the team buffed it), as they can completely twist how the supposed calculations are made, allowing for much dirtier hits to be dished out without fear of as many penalties.
Injuries aren't completely random. How much different is that in the real world though? It's not like injuries are planned. Hockey is an extremely physical game where injuries are common. If we had a way to anticipate getting injured, there would be more than protective gear and rules to help with player safety.
I agree with you. I'm not a fan of forced fights. However, I can get behind why they happen. I think this is more realistic since the majority of players aren't going to turn down a fight. Whereas in this game, chances are excellent those fights would be denied most every time.
Hits with Truculence have the same chance at taking a penalty as they do without it. All it does is boost the impact of shoulder checks, which results in larger hit reactions and there's a bigger decrease to stamina drain.
@EA_Aljo wrote:
@TTZ_Dipsy wrote:I'm sure there is some sort of actual calculation behind them but as a player on the outside looking in, injuries feel completely random. Not only that but some injuries can even heal themselves before the fighting penalty ia finished which totally defeats the point of "oh no he's hurt and now you gotta pay".
I would prefer if someone had the chance of stepping up and initiating that fight themselves instead it just choosing whoever automatically. A longer window after the hit to challenge the hitter to the fight could help what I suggested become more of a feature.
I'd like to suggest xfactors like Truculence be looked into (especially after the team buffed it), as they can completely twist how the supposed calculations are made, allowing for much dirtier hits to be dished out without fear of as many penalties.
Injuries aren't completely random. How much different is that in the real world though? It's not like injuries are planned. Hockey is an extremely physical game where injuries are common. If we had a way to anticipate getting injured, there would be more than protective gear and rules to help with player safety.
I agree with you. I'm not a fan of forced fights. However, I can get behind why they happen. I think this is more realistic since the majority of players aren't going to turn down a fight. Whereas in this game, chances are excellent those fights would be denied most every time.
Hits with Truculence have the same chance at taking a penalty as they do without it. All it does is boost the impact of shoulder checks, which results in larger hit reactions and there's a bigger decrease to stamina drain.
I can understand your point here that players would basically duck most fights and that forcing them puts things closer to what happens in the NHL. However, if we are going to be discussing this in the context of realism, the video game is missing a more recent component. This past year in the NHL, players who have initiated fights after a big hit have started to receive an extra 2 minute penalty. Its supposed to be an instigator penalty and I've seen it called that way a few times, but more times now I have seen the Refs call it roughing or unsportsmanlike to avoid the 10 minute misconduct that comes with an instigator.
My previous post already alluded to a way this could be put into Chel. If there is an injury inducing hit, allow the injured team a window to force a fight with the hitter. This has been in the game previously anyway, but both parties had to agree to fight. Actually, you could allow a window for the hitter to accept the fight challenge. However, if you force the fight, you get an instigator and your team goes on the PK. I know this will severely cut down on the fights after big hits, but in my opinion that is the preferable outcome. And in those instances where you are forced into a fight (which is on unstead ground when it comes to player agency), at least your team gets a powerplay.
I reeeeally think someone needs to look into it still. Coincidentally when I play 3v3, it's always the Truculence guy getting easier, and dirtier, hits along the boards and an extra step or two/extra leniency windows for open ice cheap shots.
Injuries are random in real hockey, sure, but you don't see the kind of devestation you do in the video game. If I hit McDavid the way I do #69 Ivana Tinkles, I would literally be thrown in jail for exploding a man in public. I can hipcheck someone coming in the opposite direction at full speed and he'll just bounce up after showing us his helicoptor blade impression, but a simple shoulder to the chest can out of nowhere break his legs or arm.
Reducing maximum stamina upon huge hits and injury and increasing bonus stamina when you win a fight would make for an interesting feature, imo
- @TTZ_Dipsy And that means I just stick with a female even more to not suffer these things
- EA_Aljo
As mentioned, Truculence does not make you less likely to take penalties. I agree with you on the stamina loss/gain for big hits and winning fights. Thanks for all the feedback.
Your idea for fights would most likely result in less of them. Which, I like because I personally find it annoying when the game stops for a fight. However, fighting for an injured teammate is pretty realistic. With all the requests for a more sim and realistic game, it seems this should probably stay in. I'm not saying there isn't a better way to handle it though. I'd love to see less encouragement for hitting all around. Which would result in fewer injured players and thus, fewer fights. Thanks so much for all the input.
- @EA_Aljo The main issue that I see with forced fights, especially 1v1, is that the big hit you reference usually turns into a turnover and often times is a breakaway or an odd man rush... the other player spams fight to kill the rush, in which case an NHLer would never take that fight to stop a breakway or an odd man. That flies in the face of realism.
I'd also agree that 2/5/10 should be in play for the forced fights if they're left in game as is. There is not a good place for injuries in things like EASHL and for that, I applaud the changes they made to Injuries in 24. Two min is enough time to feel the effects of your mistake and then get right back into the game. Sure there is a place for hits to injure a player on the ice like when someone has their head down and is skating full speed into a brick wall, but the problem is that these injuries happen from just zero speed a guy just hitting you against the boards. On top of this, hits have a large grace period that even after the puck has been sent off your stick, I've seen as high as over a second getting blasted into later, injured and no penalty was called. I did everything I was supposed to but got killed without repercussions. The grace period for being hit needs to be severely lowered if you want to punish players for being hit, which I am fine if you want to go this route.
You would also need a way to lower the chances of that hit injuring you with something like the brace feature that was in last years game but did nothing unless you had the puck in the form of the reverse hit. If I was able to react by bracing for that defender coming at me super late to neutralize their hit and maybe just knock me off balance, than it could be more fair to have injuries be 5 min and really punish your poor decision making. But right now, in its current state that stuff to protect you when getting attacked late doesn't exist and so having a short injury timer is the right strategy.
@Jbats41 wrote:
@EA_AljoThe main issue that I see with forced fights, especially 1v1, is that the big hit you reference usually turns into a turnover and often times is a breakaway or an odd man rush... the other player spams fight to kill the rush,100%. I have done this myself: If my player gets crushed, injured & the fight prompt pops up - I'm taking that fight as soon as I see my opponent getting a resulting breakaway or odd-man rush.
If you brought in line changes/multiple builds to eashl I think you open up a ton of possibilities for reworking the fighting/instigating system and actually having more of a place for enforcers/tough guy builds.
- EA_Aljo
@BabyPuncher525 wrote:
If you brought in line changes/multiple builds to eashl I think you open up a ton of possibilities for reworking the fighting/instigating system and actually having more of a place for enforcers/tough guy builds.
I think we can rework the fighting/instigating without line changes. I just don't think line changes are realistic for WoC. It would require more humans or an additional build for each line. Which just seems overly complicated.
- EA_Aljo
I should elaborate. What I'd like to see less of is the focus purely on hitting. I'm all for hitting when appropriate. Creating a club full of huge players with truculence who's only purpose is to destroy everything that moves is just annoying to play against. Winning against them doesn't even really feel satisfying. I'd rather play against teams that want a good game of hockey. Currently, there is very little punishment for playing as a goon. Penalties don't do much to deter that behavior.
@EA_Aljo wrote:
@BabyPuncher525 wrote:If you brought in line changes/multiple builds to eashl I think you open up a ton of possibilities for reworking the fighting/instigating system and actually having more of a place for enforcers/tough guy builds.
I think we can rework the fighting/instigating without line changes. I just don't think line changes are realistic for WoC. It would require more humans or an additional build for each line. Which just seems overly complicated.
I don't think it needs to be.
We all have that list of builds we choose from pre-game. It would be nice if we were able to skate to the bench and "line change" with one of those builds.
Fair. I think that it's most apparent in Ones. Enforcers can just defend all game, and then take out the goal leader to force a free goal and overtime if they need to.
For Club, it could be annoying to get matched with a team that uses all goons. Same could be said for people who take 5'7 160lb speedsters who just cherrypick all game.
- EA_Aljo
How much does that really add to the game though? I like the added realism of it, but it just seems unnecessary. Especially with the shortened periods we have. It would also make injuries almost pointless since you could just switch to a different player while they recover on the bench.
- @EA_Aljo Oh no they would want the scaled type players of a 1st liner in attributes then others decrease as you go down to 4th liner. The pace of the game slows down immensely with the need of goalies to cover almost everything. Ragging the puck would become more of a thing. We all dislike playing goon squads because those games can literally take an hour to complete when games should only be taking 20-25mins.
@EA_Aljo wrote:How much does that really add to the game though? I like the added realism of it, but it just seems unnecessary. Especially with the shortened periods we have. It would also make injuries almost pointless since you could just switch to a different player while they recover on the bench.
Changing to a new build would be non-forced ie: it's not as if you're changing lines because you're at the end of a shift and fatigued. It would be purely another chance for the user to pick a different build if they choose to.
You could disable the ability to change builds during injury.
I just like the idea of being able to pick a new build in the event that your team needs a shake-up during the game. Things aren't flowing with a TWD, so I move to an OFD. Down a goal with 2 mins left - swap my Enforcer for a sniper. All of these changes being done on the fly or in-between periods would mean there's no impact to the flow of the game either.
All depends how multiple builds/line changes would be implemented by EA. Tons of possibilities for new ideas. In my mind I'm thinking of it having an impact pretty much on everything from injuries, stamina to the whole fighting/instigating. Maybe injuries should last for the game and durability actually have a place in eashl? Line changes would be strategic or based off running low on stamina with that particular build. Someone keeps running your smaller scoring builds with a truculence pwf? Bring out the enforcer and make them think twice the next time they lay a big hit. Take the 2 min instigating if you feel it necessary at times.
- EA_Aljo
@PackBeak wrote:
Fair. I think that it's most apparent in Ones. Enforcers can just defend all game, and then take out the goal leader to force a free goal and overtime if they need to.
For Club, it could be annoying to get matched with a team that uses all goons. Same could be said for people who take 5'7 160lb speedsters who just cherrypick all game.
I don't mind the speedy cherry pickers. They're pretty satisfying to shut down. I play D and when I notice that's what they're doing, I'll hang back and cover them. It's a pretty easy turnover in most cases. You can just wait for the pass and get a well-timed poke on it to break up the play.
@KidShowtime1867 wrote:
Changing to a new build would be non-forced ie: it's not as if you're changing lines because you're at the end of a shift and fatigued. It would be purely another chance for the user to pick a different build if they choose to.
You could disable the ability to change builds during injury.
I just like the idea of being able to pick a new build in the event that your team needs a shake-up during the game. Things aren't flowing with a TWD, so I move to an OFD. Down a goal with 2 mins left - swap my Enforcer for a sniper. All of these changes being done on the fly or in-between periods would mean there's no impact to the flow of the game either.
Something about this just doesn't sit right with me. It feels like you're jumping into another player's body in a sense. I think part of the skill in this game is being able to change up how you play to meet the needs of each situation. If games were longer, I wouldn't mind a couple lines of human controlled players so you could swap with a teammate. I just don't like filling a team with different builds where everyone controls multiple players.
@BabyPuncher525 wrote:
All depends how multiple builds/line changes would be implemented by EA. Tons of possibilities for new ideas. In my mind I'm thinking of it having an impact pretty much on everything from injuries, stamina to the whole fighting/instigating. Maybe injuries should last for the game and durability actually have a place in eashl? Line changes would be strategic or based off running low on stamina with that particular build. Someone keeps running your smaller scoring builds with a truculence pwf? Bring out the enforcer and make them think twice the next time they lay a big hit. Take the 2 min instigating if you feel it necessary at times.
I'm sure there's potential here to add something worthwhile to the game. I just wouldn't want to make it easy to essentially avoid an injury, penalty or fatigue. As far as your example with smaller builds goes, I just think that's the risk you take for having that build and part of the skill in playing them is knowing how to avoid getting hit or moving the puck when know a hit is coming. I think an enforcer will think twice about hitting when they realize they're going up against a slippery player that isn't so easy to hit.
I'm not saying everything you both suggested isn't worth exploring. I'm just having a harder time with seeing how much more fun that's going to make the game. Then again, fun is obviously subjective, but are there enough interested in this to make it worth the huge amount of work to make it happen?
@KlariskraysNHL wrote:
@EA_Aljo Oh no they would want the scaled type players of a 1st liner in attributes then others decrease as you go down to 4th liner. The pace of the game slows down immensely with the need of goalies to cover almost everything. Ragging the puck would become more of a thing. We all dislike playing goon squads because those games can literally take an hour to complete when games should only be taking 20-25mins.I like the idea of lines having a lower cap on attributes for lines 2, 3 and 4 so you don't just jump into another meta build or something. And what would stop someone from creating the same build on each line anyway? I definitely don't want to see the pace of the game slowed down though. I think the length and pace of games, when played as intended, is pretty much perfect.
@EA_Aljo wrote:
@PackBeak wrote:Fair. I think that it's most apparent in Ones. Enforcers can just defend all game, and then take out the goal leader to force a free goal and overtime if they need to.
For Club, it could be annoying to get matched with a team that uses all goons. Same could be said for people who take 5'7 160lb speedsters who just cherrypick all game.
I don't mind the speedy cherry pickers. They're pretty satisfying to shut down. I play D and when I notice that's what they're doing, I'll hang back and cover them. It's a pretty easy turnover in most cases. You can just wait for the pass and get a well-timed poke on it to break up the play.
@KlariskraysNHL wrote:
@EA_AljoOh no they would want the scaled type players of a 1st liner in attributes then others decrease as you go down to 4th liner. The pace of the game slows down immensely with the need of goalies to cover almost everything. Ragging the puck would become more of a thing. We all dislike playing goon squads because those games can literally take an hour to complete when games should only be taking 20-25mins.I like the idea of lines having a lower cap on attributes for lines 2, 3 and 4 so you don't just jump into another meta build or something. And what would stop someone from creating the same build on each line anyway? I definitely don't want to see the pace of the game slowed down though. I think the length and pace of games, when played as intended, is pretty much perfect.
I played D in EASHL, too. I was the same way. Club 3's was another story. Gameplay is slightly different.
On your other point, maybe having different coaches change overall for lines.. kind of how line chemistry used to work.
One coach could be: +1 line one, +0 lines two and three, -1 line four.
Another could be: +2 line one, +0 line two, -1 lines three and four.
Another could be: 0 all. (Roll 4)
Featured Places
