EA_Aljo
Community Manager
Community ManagerHitting acceleration reverted today 2/5
Hello, NHL Fans. The change that was made in last week's update regarding the accelration with hitting being removed, was reverted.
Forum Discussion
EA_AljoCommunity Manager
Community Manager
@KidShowtime1867 wrote:
Obviously I'm in the minority on this, but I'm uncertain how anyone who wants this game to be sim would agree that accelerating from a body check attempt is favorable to a more nuanced and positional approach to body checking.
I don't consider the hitting mechanic to be perfect, but the recent change did add responsibility to the hitter which opened up the game a bit more. But I'm outgunned on this one and the community has spoken. Looking forward to abusing the heck out of this again.
I agree. I preferred the changes to hitting, but obviously much of the community did not feel the same. I'll say it once again, we get requests for the game to be less arcade and then get complaints when that happens.
@EA_Aljo Again, the root cause is a lack of direction.
You don't get much more directionless than running in circles and this is about as circular as you can get.
Making contact was fine either way really, mostly a timing adjustment, but the reactions to that contact are too extreme.
If you don't flatten the player they simply pick up the puck again and continue moving.
Contact should have variable outcomes depending on how well a hit connects.
The majority of hits should simply result in separation from the puck. The players stop while the puck keeps going.
A glancing blow can allow the player to shrug off a hit and chase the puck down.
A big hit should be square contact with a minimum combination of speed between the two players. If someone slows down to brace for a hit, they should at least have the ability to keep their feet. If they try to beat a big hit by keeping their feet moving (and fail to avoid contact), they should be knocked down.
Those elements in combination (maybe not perfect as defined, but generally) should give a clear overall picture as to how these interactions take place.
Something like: (Where X is attacking player's speed and Y is defending player's speed)
Scenario 1: Good contact
If X + Y > 100 = Big Hit
If X + Y < 100 = Small Hit
Scenario 2: Bad contact
If (X + Y) > 100 > Small Hit
If (X + Y) < 100 > Glancing Blow
There would have to be modifiers for things like strength, checking, balance, etc., and the threshold of "100" would have to be determined, but that should give an idea.
Then there's the aftereffect of a hit. The puck's speed and direction at contact should be maintained regardless of the result of the hit, resulting in more pucks being knocked loose, while the physical effects of how long a player is down or how frequently they are injured, should be reduced and limited to when Good contact AND Big hit are established.
Regardless, the point is to map out the expected direction and then work to implement it.
You don't get much more directionless than running in circles and this is about as circular as you can get.
Making contact was fine either way really, mostly a timing adjustment, but the reactions to that contact are too extreme.
If you don't flatten the player they simply pick up the puck again and continue moving.
Contact should have variable outcomes depending on how well a hit connects.
The majority of hits should simply result in separation from the puck. The players stop while the puck keeps going.
A glancing blow can allow the player to shrug off a hit and chase the puck down.
A big hit should be square contact with a minimum combination of speed between the two players. If someone slows down to brace for a hit, they should at least have the ability to keep their feet. If they try to beat a big hit by keeping their feet moving (and fail to avoid contact), they should be knocked down.
Those elements in combination (maybe not perfect as defined, but generally) should give a clear overall picture as to how these interactions take place.
Something like: (Where X is attacking player's speed and Y is defending player's speed)
Scenario 1: Good contact
If X + Y > 100 = Big Hit
If X + Y < 100 = Small Hit
Scenario 2: Bad contact
If (X + Y) > 100 > Small Hit
If (X + Y) < 100 > Glancing Blow
There would have to be modifiers for things like strength, checking, balance, etc., and the threshold of "100" would have to be determined, but that should give an idea.
Then there's the aftereffect of a hit. The puck's speed and direction at contact should be maintained regardless of the result of the hit, resulting in more pucks being knocked loose, while the physical effects of how long a player is down or how frequently they are injured, should be reduced and limited to when Good contact AND Big hit are established.
Regardless, the point is to map out the expected direction and then work to implement it.
