NHL Team
@EA_Aljo wrote:
@llamaverox wrote:
@KidShowtime1867I'd also like to point out, I've made several post in this forum of games I have won where I am pointing out significant flaws in what I consider to be bad gameplay. My issues with this game are consistency and the lack of simulation. Losing a game because the game lacks consistency. Is not fun. What also isn't fun? Winning games because of it. I have not had only a handful of games where I felt good about winning it, because it feels cheesy to score in this game. You have to cheese the goalies to score. You don't cheese them going for the same 3 or 4 ways to score you aren't scoring. Which is just badly designed gameplay. We just plainly disagree that the issues with this game are related to losing,Can you give me examples of consistency? Having every scenario play out the same every time doesn't sound very simulation with hockey being the dynamic sport that it is.
Things you have already said are not issues, such as sticks going through bodies and pucks and players keeping the puck.
When trying to defend passing lanes, pucks going right through players, as offense has 100% puck pickup on passes but defense is completely out to dry on it.
Stick lifts going right through sticks despite being in proper position, and sometimes even getting the sound for a stick lift and it still being a penalty.
Phantom cross check and elbows just because the game wants more drama.
AI literally standing still on the breakout creating pylons you have to avoid.
There are so many little issues that pop up that are frustrating. Give me a simulation game one year and I promise it outsells the arcadey games your team are producing.
Also a simulation game means an in depth franchise mode that has meaning for winning stanley cups, part of what makes franchise mode not fun is it is barebones. You win a stanley cup there is no tangible difference between that and being the first overall pick. There needs to be systems in place, like the radio calls of be a pro need to be in franchise mode. Have prestiege of your teams matter as far as free agents or salary negotiations. There are so many little things that would make a more meaningful game.
https://youtu.be/pxE8oGbasIs?si=FM_4bIVe7F45BHhf
This video does a good job of showing it.
The responses from community members on this forum are so out of field for what Mike says.
Community ManagerThank you. That really helps the consistency you're talking about. Glad to see Mike's response. It certainly echoes my own conversations with him. You're always welcome to provide videos of anything you'd like reviewed. There are times sticks are supposed to pass through objects. Pucks can pass through players when contact is made with another player. It's really important to see what you're experiencing to understand if it's intended or not.
Community Manager
@llamaverox wrote:
@EA_Aljo I just think simulation is the direction the series needs to go. The closer to simulation I think the game is the better the game is.
While I don't agree with this, I'd love to see a simulation mode added to the game. In the past, whenever we've added something to the game that makes it harder, the community very heavily pushes back. I'm talking about gameplay only. Not anything to do with presentation. I'm curious why Online Versus so played so much less than HUT. It would be the more sim style mode. Also, we had a huge amount of pushback when EASHL had pre-made classes. Everyone wanted a way to boost their players.
Something else to consider is that you could see less consistency with a sim mode. We can use poke checks as an example. If you want every successful poke to move the puck out of reach of the carrier, then it wouldn't matter how contact is made. You poke the puck, it moves out of reach. What we currently have isn't full sim, but it takes into account various conditions that determine where the puck goes and who picks it up. This is based on how hard the puck is hit, how the stick makes contact, the ratings of the players involved, etc. I definitely agree there needs to be a higher level of consistency, but I think the more we head that direction, the less sim the game becomes.
@EA_Aljo wrote:Also, we had a huge amount of pushback when EASHL had pre-made classes. Everyone wanted a way to boost their players.
Just wanted to say I don't think this necessarily has to do with sim vs arcade, more customization vs competitive standardization. I think the community enjoyed the role playing aspects of unlocking and customizing their load out and while standardized classes created a more equal footing, it felt more empty. Also, I think you guys got the balance between standardization and customization right with allowing a measured amount of customization with everyone starting from the same place. So nice work.
I think most players deep down understand that sim vs arcade is more a spectrum and not a binary decision. I would be in favor of pushing the slider a little more toward the sim side, but understand in order for the game to feel good, and even feel like a sim, there are some arcadey elements at play.
